Ex Parte Polcyn

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Mar 30, 2011

09574317 (B.P.A.I. Mar. 30, 2011)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte MICHAEL J. POLCYN
_____________

Appeal 2010-002445
Application 09/574,317
Technology Center 2600
____________

Before JOSEPH F. RUGGIERO, MARC S. HOFF,
and ELENI MANTIS MERCADER, Administrative Patent Judges.

MANTIS MERCADER, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2010-002445
Application 09/574,317

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the non-final
rejection of claims 1-5, 8-12, 15, and 17-19.1 We have jurisdiction under 35
U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.

INVENTION
Appellant’s invention is directed to a translator 105 which is an
interface between an electronic calendar application and a voice mail or call
processing system. See Fig. 1; Spec. 10.
Claim 1, reproduced below, is representative of the subject matter on
appeal:
1. A system for completing calls from a calling party directed to a
particular called party, said system comprising:
calendaring information with respect to said called party stored on a
general purpose processor-based system; and
means for providing select portions of said calendaring information to
an automatic call routing system, wherein a call routing scheme of said call
routing system is modified to route calls as a function of said select portions
of said calendaring information.

THE REJECTION
The Examiner relies upon the following as evidence of
unpatentability:
Arbel US 5,276,731 Jan. 4, 1994

1 The Examiner indicated claims 6, 7, 13, 14, and 20 as allowable. As such,
these claims are not before us for review.
Appeal 2010-002445
Application 09/574,317

3
The following rejection is before us for review:
The Examiner rejected claims 1-5, 8-12, 15, and 17-19 under 35
U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Arbel.

ISSUES
The pivotal issues are whether Arbel teaches:
1. the limitation of a “calendaring information” as recited in claim 1;
2. the limitation of “storing calendaring information . . . on a general
purpose processor-based system” as recited in claim 8;
3. the limitation of “a data file associated with a[n] electronic calendar
program” as recited in claims 2, 9, and 15;
4. providing the select portions of the calendaring information to the
call routing system automatically as recited in claims 3, 10, and 17;
5. the limitation of “automatic operation . . . upon modification of said
calendaring information” as recited in claims 4, 11, and 18; and
6. the limitation of “initiated at a preselected time interval” as recited
in claims 5, 12, and 19.

ANALYSIS
A. Analysis with respect to claim 1
Appellant argues (App. Br. 7) that the “predetermined selection
criteria” such as Arbel’s “call origination information, call origination
information with wildcards, time, day, date, or combination of the above
factors” (col. 5, ll. 5-13) do not meet the “calendaring information.”
Appellant explains (App. Br. 7-10) that Arbel’s “predetermined selection
criteria” do not comprise a calendar for the called party showing specific
Appeal 2010-002445
Application 09/574,317

4
events scheduled for a particular day by a user. Appellant asserts (App. Br.
7) that consistent to the customary definition of “calendar,” Appellant’s
Specification describes “calendar” as “specific events scheduled for a
particular day by a user.”
We do not find Appellant’s arguments persuasive. We agree with the
Examiner (Ans. 5-6) that Arbel’s example of transferring calls to a second
target (i.e., the operator) at a specific time interval such as 08:00 AM to
04:00 PM on Saturday and Sunday (col. 10, l. 24), in the event “Peter
Parker” is absent from a shift, constitutes “calendaring information.” This
analysis is consistent with Appellant’s own disclosure of how calendaring
information (i.e., scheduled lunch) affects re-routing of calls (Spec. 12:1-
13).
We are also not persuaded by Appellant’s argument (App. Br. 8-10)
that Arbel does not teach using “select portions” of the calendaring
information to re-route calls. Arbel clearly teaches (col. 10, ll. 20-27) that
based on “Peter Parker”’s selected calendaring information (i.e., specific
time and day) the system re-routes calls differently. For example, compare
re-routing incoming calls at 08:00 AM to 04:00 PM on weekdays (MTWTF)
from the 1st Target extension (x5234) to a 2nd Target (the operator x0) with
re-routing incoming calls at 08:00 AM to 04:00 PM on weekends (SS) (i.e.,
different select portions of the calendaring information) from a different 1st
Target extension (x5778) to a 2nd Target (the operator x0).
Accordingly, we will affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1.
B. Analysis with respect to claim 8
Appellant argues (App. Br. 10-11) that Arbel does not teach “storing
calendaring information . . . on a general purpose processor-based system.”
Appeal 2010-002445
Application 09/574,317

5
We are not persuaded by Appellant’s argument. We agree with the
Examiner (Ans. 6) that Arbel’s database is used to perform many
embodiments as evidenced by the tables in Arbel, and as such the database is
a part of a general purpose computer.
Accordingly, we will also affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claim 8.
C. Analysis with respect to claims 15 and 17-19
Appellant argues (App. Br. 11-12) that Arbel is silent as to a “data
file” associated with an electronic calendar program. We agree with the
Examiner (Ans. 7) that any data file of time/day may be used by Arbel. We
note that the claim language does not preclude the table of col. 10 (col. 10,
ll. 20-27) from being viewed as “a data file” associated with an electronic
calendar program (i.e., designated Time/Day info of the table that will be
used by the computer/program to re-route calls).
Thus, we will sustain the Examiner’s rejection of representative claim
15 and, for the same reasons, the rejections of claims 17-19.
D. Analysis with respect to claims 2 and 9
Appellant repeats (App. Br. 12-13) the same argument as that
articulated in section C. of the analysis.
For the same reasons articulated in section C., we will sustain the
Examiner’s rejections of claims 2 and 9.
E. Analysis with respect to claims 3, 10, and 17
Appellant argues (App. Br. 13-14) that Arbel does not teach the
limitation of providing the select portions of the calendaring information to
the call routing system automatically.
We are not persuaded by Appellant’s argument. Arbel discloses that
controller 370 interrogates database 360 based on the call origination
Appeal 2010-002445
Application 09/574,317

6
information and the predetermined selection criteria (col. 12, ll. 15-19),
which includes date, time, and event information, such as absence from a
shift, as discussed above (i.e., calendaring information). Based on the
calendaring information, the controller 370 automatically redirects the call
(col. 12, ll. 15-19; col. 13, ll. 4-13).
Thus, we will also sustain the Examiner’s rejections of claims 3, 10,
and 17 for the articulated reasons.
F. Analysis with respect to claims 4, 11, and 18
Appellant argues (App. Br. 14-15) that Arbel does not teach
“automatic operation . . . upon modification of said calendaring
information.” The Examiner explains (App. Br. 7-8) that it is inherent that a
user can re-set the re-routing entry (e.g. specific time, day, and appropriate
telephone numbers).
We agree with the Examiner’s reasoning. It is inherent that Arbel’s
system is not meant to be used once, but rather used multiple times allowing
the user to set the selection criteria according to the user’s availability (col.
9, l. 50–col. 10, l. 27). Thus, the user can modify the selection criteria
thereby causing the system to automatically re-route the calls based on the
modified selection criteria.
Furthermore, Arbel explicitly teaches that the user can change (i.e.,
modify) the predetermined selection criteria (col. 10, ll. 41-51), thereby
causing the controller 370 to automatically re-route the calls (col. 13, ll. 4-
13) based on the modifications.
Thus, we will also sustain the Examiner’s rejections of claims 4, 11,
and 18.
Appeal 2010-002445
Application 09/574,317

7
G. Analysis with respect to claims 5, 12, and 19
Appellant argues (App. Br. 15-16) that Arbel does not teach “initiated
at a preselected time interval.” We are not persuaded by Appellant’s
argument.
We agree with the Examiner’s finding (Ans. 8) that Arbel teaches that
in response to an incoming call, in a pre-selected time interval such as from
04:00 PM to 12:00 AM on Saturday and Sunday, a database 360 is initiated
and automatically provides the appropriate telephone number(s) for re-
routing in the event of “Peter Parker”’s absence (col. 10, ll. 11-27; col. 13, ll.
4-13).
Thus, we will also sustain the Examiner’s rejections of claims 5, 12,
and 19.

CONCLUSIONS
Arbel teaches:
1. the limitation of a “calendaring information” as recited in claim 1;
2. the limitation of “storing calendaring information . . . on a general
purpose processor-based system” as recited in claim 8;
3. the limitation of “a data file associated with a[n] electronic calendar
program” as recited in claims 2, 9, and 15;
4. providing the select portions of the calendaring information to the
call routing system automatically as recited in claims 3, 10, and 17;
5. the limitation of “automatic operation . . . upon modification of said
calendaring information” as recited in claims 4, 11, and 18; and
6. the limitation of “initiated at a preselected time interval” as recited
in claims 5, 12, and 19.
Appeal 2010-002445
Application 09/574,317

8

ORDER
The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1-5, 8-12, 15, and 17-19
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

babc