Ex Parte Sterman et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jul 29, 2016

13907340 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 29, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
13/907,340 05/31/2013 BARUCH STERMAN
72623 7590 08/02/2016
MOSER TABOADA I VON AGE HOLDINGS CORP,
1030 BROAD STREET
SUITE 203
SHREWSBURY, NJ 07702
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.
Vl81 8219
EXAMINER
TOWFIGHI, AFSHA WN M
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2469
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/02/2016 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):
docketing@mtiplaw.com
llinardakis@mtiplaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte BARUCH STERMAN, IDO MINTZ,
ITA Y BIANCO, and SAGIE MACHLIN
Appeal2015-003331
Application 13/907,340
Technology Center 2400
Before JASON V. MORGAN, MELISSA A. HAAPALA, and
NABEEL U. KHAN, Administrative Patent Judges.
KHAN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants 1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Final Rejection
of claims 1-24.2 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is V onage Network LLC.
App. Br. 3.
2 The Final Rejection is the "updated rejection" presented by the Advisory
Action (June 17, 2014) and Answer; not the rejection presented by the prior
Final Action (March 11, 2014). The updated rejection results from the
after-final amendments (Arndt. under 37 C.F.R. 1.312 (June 17, 2014)) and
review thereof under the After Final Consideration Pilot 2.0 (AFCP 2.0).
See Notice of After Final Consideration Pilot Program 2.0,
78 Fed. Reg. 29117 (2013).
Appeal2015-003331
Application 13/907,340
THE INVENTION
Appellants' invention is: "A method for call handling comprising[:]
receiving, from a first device, an incoming call request directed to a second
device, wherein the call request contains call handling information[;] and
transmitting an outgoing call request to the second device, wherein the
outgoing call request is based at least in part upon the call handling
information." Spec. abst.
Independent claims 1 and 17 are illustrative and reproduced below.
1. A method for call handling comprising:
receiving, from a first device, an incoming call request directed
to a second device, wherein the call request contains call
handling information provided by the first device that instructs
the second device how to handle the incoming call request;
inserting the call handling information into a call configuration
message for an outgoing call to the second device; and
transmitting an outgoing call request including the call
configuration message to the second device to control how the
call is handled by the second device.
REFERENCES AND REJECTIONS
Claims 1-24 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable
over Brown et al. (US 2003/0112948 Al, published June 19, 2003) and
Crockett et al. (US 2002/0034286 Al, published March 21, 2002).
2
Appeal2015-003331
Application 13/907,340
CLAHvIS 1, 2, AND 16
Appellants address claims 1, 2, and 16 as a group. App. Br. 5.
Claim 1 is representative. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(iv) (2014).
The Appellants dispute is whether the applied prior art teaches
claim l's "call handling information provided by the first device that
instructs the second device how to handle the incoming call request." App.
Br. 5-7; Ans. 11-14; Reply Br. 2-3.
The Examiner finds Brown teaches the claimed "call handling
information provided by the first device" (Advisory Act. 3 (citing Brown
,-i 125-129)) and Crockett teaches sending instructions in a call request to the
called device (Advisory Act. 3--4 (citing Crockett ,-i 39); Ans. 13-14.).
Appellants argue "nothing in Crockett tells the called device how to
process the call based on the calling device[']s instructions." App. Br. 6-7.
Appellants explain:
[T]he instructions sent by the caller in Crockett are not
instructing the second device how to handle the incoming call.
Rather, the instructions sent by the caller in Crockett merely
provide information to the callee about the context (e.g. urgency,
name pronunciation, etc.) of the incoming call. By contrast, in
embodiments consistent with the recited claims, a user of a
telephony device (calling device) may provide a signal indicating
how their calls ... should be handled by the device in use by the
called party.
App. Br. 9-10 (orig. emph. ).
We are unpersuaded by the Appellants' arguments because they attack
Crockett individually and do not address the Examiner's findings as a whole.
The Examiner reasonably finds claim l's "call handling information" is
reached by Brown's disclosure of submitting information in a call request
3
Appeal2015-003331
Application 13/907,340
including text messages, video, pictures, and URLs, to be presented to the
called party. Ans. 13 (citing Brown iJ 125-127). This is consistent with the
Appellants' own description of call handling information as including
URL' s of ringtones and avatars, embedded caller IDs, links to media, video
clips, and pictures. Spec. iii! 15-20. The Examiner also reasonably finds
that Brown's call request with call handling information, is directed to the
called device, not just the callee, and that it controls how the call is handled
by the called device. Advisory Act. 3 (explaining that Brown's "incoming
call request [is] directed to a second device" and includes call configuration
message "to control how the call is handled by the second device").
The Examiner also reasonably finds that Crockett's teaching of
urgency notification constitutes call handling information that instructs the
second device how to handle the incoming call request, as claimed, insofar
as the information (urgency) is passed from the calling device to the called
device and indicates the called device should notify the user of the call' s
urgency. Advisory Act. 3-4 (citing Crockett iJ 39); Ans. 13-14. The
Specification also confirms a called device's accordant handling of an
incoming call may include merely notification-type actions (e.g., ringtones).
Spec. iii! 2-3, 13, 15, 20.
The combination of Brown and Crockett therefore teach "call
handling information provided by the first device that instructs the second
device how to handle the incoming call request," as recited in claim 1.
Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of claim 1 and represented claims 2
and 16.
CLAIMS 3-9
Appellants address claims 3-9 as a group. App. Br. 7. Claim 3 is
4
Appeal2015-003331
Application 13/907,340
representative. Claim 3 depends from claim 2, which depends from claim 1.
Claim 3 requires embedding of a URL into the outgoing call request
(claim 2) and linking, by the URL, to a script of programmatic statements
for execution on the second device (claim 3).
Appellants argue that, although the Examiner correctly cites Brown as
teaching a URL within a call request, the URL neither expressly nor
inherently links to a script of programmatic statements for execution on a
called device. App. Br. 7-8.
In response, the Examiner newly cites Gupta (US 2001/0039565 Al;
Nov. 8, 2001) as a "teaching reference" to show URLs were generally
understood as linking to scripts for execution on a browser. 3 Ans. 15. The
Examiner also quotes Brown's cited paragraph 129, with added emphasis, as
follows: "The communication may include a URL ... to the call
completion system (e.g., web server 112 of system 100) or other site (e.g., a
subscriber data page)[.]" Ans. 15 (orig. emph.). The Examiner then states
Brown's URL "is clearly linked to a set of instructions that are provided to a
browser for execution/display." Id.
The Examiner presents reasonable and untraversed official notice,
with documentary evidence (Gupta), that it would have been known to an
artisan of ordinary skill that URLs were commonly linked to scripts for
downloading and execution on a web browser. The Examiner also presents
a reasonable finding that, having such knowledge ofURLs, a skilled artisan
would interpret Brown's URL as delivering a script from the web server 112
to the called device for execution. Appellants do not contest these
3 Appellants do not contest the Examiner's use of Gupta to show how URL' s
were generally understood.
5
Appeal2015-003331
Application 13/907,340
reasonable findings. Reply Br. 4 ("[Claim 3 is] patentable for the reasons
discussed in the Appeal Brief."); see also In re Boon, 439 F.2d 724, 728
("[A] challenge to judicial notice ... creates a reasonable doubt regarding
the circumstances justifying the judicial notice.").
Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of claim 3 and represented
claims 4-9.
CLAIMS 10-15
Appellants address claims 10-15 as a group. App. Br. 8. Claim 10 is
representative. Claim 10 depends from claim 1 and recites the call handling
information is embedded into a content portion of a signaling protocol
message.
Appellants argue:
Claim 10 ... recites that the call handling information is
embedded into a content portion of a signaling protocol message.
[I]n embodiments consistent with the claimed invention, the call
parameter information 104 ... may be directly embedded in the
SOP content of a SIP message instead of linking to an external
URL. (Appellants Specification, paragraphs [0017]-[0019].)
Meanwhile, paragraphs [0024] and [0129] in Brown, or
anywhere else in Brown or Crockett, do teach or make obvious
that call handling information is embedded into a content portion
of a signaling protocol message.
App. Br. 8.
The Examiner responds, and we agree, that Appellants have not
presented a meaning of claim 10' s "embedded into a content portion of a
signaling protocol message[.]" Ans. 16. Appellants merely quote and
6
Appeal2015-003331
Application 13/907,340
emphasize claim 10' s above language, provide non-limiting examples from
the Specification, and cursorily contend Brown's cited paragraphs 24 and
129 do not teach the emphasized feature. App. Br. 8. Despite the
Examiner's response that "[t]he claim language is broad and does not
include specific limitations argued" (Ans. 17), Appellants' Reply Brief also
fails to present a meaning of "content portion of a signaling protocol
message," much less a correspondingly required feature that distinguishes
over Brown's and Crockett's applied teachings.
Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of claim 10 and represented
claims 11-15.
CLAIM 17
The arguments presented for independent claim 17 are substantially
similar and refer back to the "call handling information" arguments
presented for claim 1. App. Br. 9. Like claim 1, claim 17 does not require
the call handling information to signal a call handling operation to the called
device, but is rather merely passed from the calling device to the called
device and purposed to instruct the called device how to handle the call.
Accordingly, for the reasons sustaining the rejection of claim 1, we
sustain the rejection of claim 17.
CLAIMS 18-24
Appellants address claims 18-24 as a group. Appellants address only
claim 18, from which claims 19-24 depend. Claim 18 depends from
claim 17 and recites: "where prior to taking the action: a URL is determined
from the call handling information linking to a script comprising call
instructions."
7
Appeal2015-003331
Application 13/907,340
Appellants argue that Brown's cited URL, disclosed at paragraph 129
(addressed supra for claim 3), is "in no way" determined from call handling
information linking to a script. App. Br. 10-11.
Appellants' argument is unpersuasive. The Examiner reasonably
finds Brown teaches call handling information that can include a URL
linking to a script. Advisory Act. 9; Ans. 15. Thus, we agree with the
Examiner that the combination of Brown and Crockett teaches "a URL []
determined from the call handling information linking to a script comprising
call instructions," as recited in claim 18.
Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of claims 18-24.
DECISION
The Examiner's decision to reject claims 1-24 is affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § l .136(a)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED
8