Ex Parte Pascazi

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Sep 6, 2012

09902466 (B.P.A.I. Sep. 6, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARKOFFICE
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
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
09/902,466 07/10/2001 Michael Pascazi 844-002 6786
7590 09/07/2012
SOFER & HAROUN, L.L.P.
317 MADISON AVE.
SUITE 910
New York, NY 10017
EXAMINER
TRAN, CONGVAN
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2617
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/07/2012 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
_____________

Ex parte MICHAEL PASCAZI

Appeal 2010-006231
Application 09/902,466
Technology Center 2600
______________

Before ROBERT E. NAPPI, KALYAN K. DESHPANDE and BRYAN F.
MOORE, Administrative Patent Judges.

Nappi, Administrative Patent Judge

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal 2010-006231
Application 09/902,466
2

This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the rejection
of claims 1 through 3 and 5 through 17.
We affirm.
INVENTION
The invention is directed to a method for transmitting cell phone call
signals between two cell towers using an internet protocol interface. See
Specification page 3. Claim 1 is representative of the claimed invention
under appeal and reproduced below:

1. A telephone system for transmitting telephone signals between
first and second mobile stations, said system comprising:
a first internet protocol interface configured to receive an
incoming cell phone signal generated by the first mobile station, and
to transmit said phone signal to the internet; and
a second internet protocol interface configured to receive said
phone signal sent through the internet by said first internet protocol
interface and to transmit said phone signal to the second mobile
station, such that users of the first and second mobile stations can
engage in a conversation where said phone signals are communicated
over substantial distances through the internet, wherein said first and
second internet protocol interfaces each maintain an echo
canceller/equalizer module configured to correct distortions in said
phone signal caused by the travel of said phone signal through free
air, server delays and internet delays.

REJECTION AT ISSUE
The Examiner has rejected claims 1 through 3 and 5 through 17 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Heinonen (US 6,816,719 B1 (filed
Appeal 2010-006231
Application 09/902,466
3

Nov. 3, 1999)) in view of Klindworth (US 6,771,701 B1 (filed Dec. 29,
1999)). Answer 3-5.1
ISSUE
Appellant argues on page 10 through 13 of the Brief that the
Examiner’s rejection of claims 1 through 3 and 5 through 17 is in error.2
These contentions present us with the following issues:
1) Did the Examiner error in finding that the skilled artisan would add
an echo cancelation mechanism to Heinonen’s system?
2) Does Heinonen’s disclosure teach away from using the echo
cancelation system?

ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellant’s
contentions that the Examiner has erred. Further, we have reviewed the
Examiner’s response to Appellant’s arguments.
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. The
Examiner has provided a comprehensive response to Appellant’s arguments
on pages 5 and 6 of the Answer. Appellant’s arguments center on Heinonen
merely transmitting profile information. Brief 11, 13, Reply Brief 10. The

1 Throughout this opinion we refer to the Examiner’s Answer mailed on
February 16, 2010.
2 Throughout this opinion we refer to the Replacement Appeal Brief dated
December 21, 2009, and Reply Brief dated April 13, 2010.
Appeal 2010-006231
Application 09/902,466
4

Examiner finds that it is inherent in Heinonen’s system that the terminals are
used to engage in a conversation. Answer 5. We concur with the Examiner’s
findings as they are supported by the disclosure Heinonen. We note that
Heinonen teaches that the mobile terminals can communicate over the
Internet via voice over IP (i.e. the terminals carry conversation data over the
Internet), see col. 6, 1-9. Thus, we are not persuaded that the Examiner
erred in finding that the skilled artisan would combine the echo cancelation
with Heinonen. Further, as Heinonen also discusses voice communication,
we are not persuaded of error by Appellant’s arguments directed to
Heinonen teaching away from the combination of the references.
Accordingly, we concur with the conclusion reached by the Examiner that
the claims are obvious.

CONCLUSION
The Examiner has not erred in rejecting 1 through 3 and 5 through 17
under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
DECISION
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1 through 3 and 5 through 17 is
affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED

tj