Ex Parte Ljubicich

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Oct 20, 2016

12510747 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 20, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/510,747
24392 7590
FISH & TSANG LLP
ROBERT D. FISH
2603 Main Street
Suite 1000
07/28/2009
10/24/2016
Irvine, CA 92614-6232
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Philip Andrew Ljubicich
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
United States Patent and Trademark Office
Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
P.O. Box 1450
Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
www .uspto.gov
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
100667.0022US1 2468
EXAMINER
ROBINSON, GRETA LEE
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2169
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
10/24/2016 ELECTRONIC
Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.
The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication.
Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the
following e-mail address( es):
rfish @fishiplaw.com
patents@fishiplaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte PHILIP ANDREW LJUBICICH
Appeal2015-004645
Application 12/510,747
Technology Center 2100
Before KRISTEN L. DROESCH, JOHNNY A. KUMAR, and
TERRENCE W. McMILLIN, Administrative Patent Judges.
KUMAR, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal2015-004645
Application 12/510,747
STATEMENT OF CASE
Introduction
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the Non-Final
Rejection of claims 21--40. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
Exemplary Claim
Exemplary claim 21 under appeal reads as follows:
21. A method, comprising:
creating by a processor a first set of records associated
with a phone number included in a do-not-call database,
wherein the first set of records represents a first continuum of
ownership for the phone number during a first period of time;
creating by the processor a second set of records
associated with the phone number, wherein the second set of
records represents a second continuum of ownership for the
phone number during a second period of time that is different
than the first period of time;
comparing by the processor the first set of records to the
second set of records to determine whether an ownership match
exists for the first and second sets of records;
if an ownership match exists between the first and second
sets of records, creating by the processor an aggregate first set
of records by adding the second set of records to the first set of
records; and
creating by the processor a new second set of records in
response to creating the aggregate first set of records, the new
second set of records representing a third continuum of
ownership for the phone number during a third period of time
that is different than the first period of time and the second
period of time.
2
Appeal2015-004645
Application 12/510,747
Rejection1
Claims 21--40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Keller (US 2005/0246344 Al, Nov. 3, 2005) in view of
Fotta (US 2006/0159060 Al, July 20, 2006).
ANALYSIS2
We have reviewed the Examiner's rejection in light of Appellant's
arguments (Appeal Brief and Reply Brief) that the Examiner has erred.
We disagree with Appellant's conclusions. We adopt as our own
( 1) the findings and reasons set forth by the Examiner in the action from
which this appeal is taken and (2) the reasons set forth by the Examiner
in the Examiner's Answer in response to Appellant's Appeal Brief. We
concur with the conclusions reached by the Examiner. Ans. 4--7. We
highlight and address specific arguments for emphasis as follows.
Appellant contends that Keller and Fotta "fail to contemplate tracking
ownership of a phone number from the effective date to the expiration date
of the registration." App. Br. 8.
Appellant's arguments are not commensurate in scope with the claim
language because "tracking ownership of a phone number from the effective
date to the expiration date of the registration" is not recited in claim 21.
1 The Examiner has withdrawn the rejection of claims 21--40 under
35 U.S.C. § 112, first and second paragraphs. Ans. 3.
2 Independent claim 31 presents the same dispositive issues as independent
claim 21. App. Br. 11-13. Separate patentability is not argued for
dependent claims 22-23, 25, 27-29, and 32--40; except for our ultimate
decision, these claims are not discussed further.
3
Appeal2015-004645
Application 12/510,747
Regarding claim 21, while Appellant raised additional arguments for
patentability (App. Br. 9-10), we find that the Examiner has rebutted each
and every one of those arguments supported by sufficient evidence. Ans. 4--
6; Non-Final Rej. 4--6. Therefore, we adopt the Examiner's findings and
underlying reasoning, which are incorporated herein by reference.
Regarding claims 24, 26, and 30, although Appellant raises additional
arguments for patentability (App. Br. 11 ), we find that the Examiner has
rebutted each and every one of those arguments supported by sufficient
evidence. Ans. 6-7.
We have considered Appellant's Reply Brief but find it unpersuasive
in rebutting the Examiner's responses. Accordingly, we find the Examiner
did not err in rejecting claims 21--40 under§ 103.
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner's § 103 rejection of claims 21--40.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED.
4