Ex Parte Ozog et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 9, 2014

11662277 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 9, 2014)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte FRANCOIS-FREDERIC OZOG
and ROBERT S. BLOCK
____________

Appeal 2012-009747
Application 11/662,277
Technology Center 2600
____________

Before ALLEN R. MacDONALD, JEFFREY S. SMITH, and
MELISSA A. HAAPALA, Administrative Patent Judges.

HAAPALA, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

This is a decision on appeal under U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final
rejection of claims 1 and 3–12.
We reverse.

Appeal 2012-009747
Application 11/662,277

2
CLAIMED INVENTION
Appellants’ invention is directed to providing presence detection in a
communication system in which multiple entities participate. See Spec. 2.
Claim 1, which is an illustrative independent claim, recites:
1. A method for providing presence detection in a
communication system, comprising:
associating the identity of a first entity participating in
the communication system, with a communication link of the
system;
providing access to information regarding the first entity
to other entities participating in the communication system;
receiving an indication of an incident, including a class
or magnitude of the incident;
accessing a list of users authorized to participate in the
communication system, based on the indication; and
denying users absent from the accessed list, access to the
communication system.

REJECTIONS ON APPEAL
The Examiner rejected claims 1 and 3–12 as being unpatentable under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over the combination of Deinzer (US 2003/0176180 A1;
published Sept. 18, 2003), Petite (US 2003/0078029 A1; published Apr. 24,
2003), and Benco (US 2004/0170265 A1; published Sept. 2, 2004). Ans. 4–
10.

ISSUES
Appellants contend that the Examiner’s rejection of independent
claims 1 and 8 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) is improper. Appeal Br. 5–8.
Appellants present further contentions that the Examiner’s rejection of
dependent claims 4, 5, 10, and 11 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) is improper.
Appeal 2012-009747
Application 11/662,277

3
Appeal Br. 8. Appellants’ contentions present us with this dispositive issue1:
Do the combined teachings of Deinzer, Petite, and Benco teach or suggest
accessing a list of users authorized to participate in the communication
system, based on an indication of an incident, the indication including a
class or magnitude of the incident?

ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejection in consideration of
Appellants’ contentions that the rejection is improper. We agree with
Appellants that the references fail to teach or suggest accessing a list of users
authorized to participate in a communication system based on an indication
of an incident that includes a class or magnitude of the incident.
Claim 1 recites “accessing a list of users authorized to participate in
the communication system, based on the indication.” The indication is “an
indication of an incident” that includes “a class or magnitude of the
incident.” Claim 1. The Examiner found that this limitation is taught by
Benco. Ans. 7. We disagree.
Benco teaches a method for validating conference call participants.
Benco ¶ 12. A determination is made as to whether a call originates from an
authorized location. Benco ¶ 15. The determination can be based on
whether the caller’s office code is on a list of office codes provided by the
host during set up of the conference call. Benco ¶ 15.
In analyzing an earlier recitation of claim 1, the Examiner found that
Petite teaches receiving an indication of an incident, including a class or

1 We do not reach the additional contentions presented by Appellants
because the identified issue is dispositive of the appeal.
Appeal 2012-009747
Application 11/662,277

4
magnitude of the incident by receiving a message from a transceiver that is
coupled to a smoke detector. Ans. 6. The Examiner then found that Benco
teaches accessing a list of users authorized to participate in a communication
based on the indication. Ans. 7. In this finding, the Examiner determined
that a YES determination that the caller is calling from an office code on a
predetermined list is the “indication of the incident.” Ans. 12.
Appellants argue that an indicator as to whether a caller is authorized
is not an indication of an incident that includes a class or magnitude of the
incident. See Appeal Br. 6. Appellants contend that Benco does not
disclose or suggest accessing a list of authorized users based on an
indication of an incident, including a class or magnitude of the incident.
Reply Br. 2. We agree with Appellants that the Examiner has not
established that Benco teaches or suggests this limitation of claim 1.
As found by the Examiner, the combined teachings of Deinzer and
Petite also do not disclose this limitation. Ans. 7. Accordingly, we conclude
that the Examiner has not established claim 1 is unpatentable.
Independent claim 8 recites substantially similar recitations to that
discussed above with reference to claim 1. Therefore, we conclude that the
Examiner has not established that this claim is unpatentable.
The remaining claims depend directly or indirectly from claims 1 or 8.
Accordingly, we conclude that the Examiner has not established the
dependent claims are unpatentable.

Appeal 2012-009747
Application 11/662,277

5
DECISION
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1 and 3–12 is reversed.

REVERSED

msc