Ex Parte Terpstra

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jan 31, 2018

14698707 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 31, 2018)

United States Patent and Trademark Office
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.
14/698,707 04/28/2015 Richard Dean Terpstra 0048-US-C2 3854
83579 7590 02/02/2018
LEVEL 3 COMMUNICATIONS, LLC
Attn: Patent Docketing
1025 Eldorado Blvd.
Broomfield, CO 80021
EXAMINER
EL-ZOOBI, MARIA
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2656
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/02/2018 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):
patent, docketing @ leve!3. com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte RICHARD DEAN TERPSTRA
Appeal 2017-008897
Application 14/698,707
Technology Center 2600
Before JASON V. MORGAN, JEREMY J. CURCURI, and
JOSEPH P. LENTIVECH, Administrative Patent Judges.
LENTIVECH, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1—4, the only claims pending in the
application on appeal. We have jurisdiction over the pending claims under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
1 Appellant is the Applicant, Level 3 Communications, LLC, which,
according to the Appeal Brief, is the real party in interest. App. Br. 2.
Appeal 2017-008897
Application 14/698,707
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant’s Invention
Appellant’s invention generally relates to “systems and methods for
third party emergency call termination.” Spec. 11. Claim 1, which is
illustrative, reads as follows:
1. receiving messaging information associated with a call
from a terminal adapter and determining whether the call is an
emergency call, wherein the messaging information includes a
telephone number associated with the terminal adapter;
if the call is determined to be an emergency call,
requesting contact information for a Public Service Answering
Point (PSAP) responsible for servicing emergency calls from a
geographic location of a broadband interface coupled with the
terminal adapter;
receiving the PSAP contact information and a token
associated with the terminal adapter;
replacing the telephone number in the messaging
information with the token to render modified messaging
information; and
routing the modified messaging information to the PSAP
using at least the PSAP contact information.
References
The Examiner relies on the following prior art in rejecting the claims
Knox US 2004/0190497 A1 Sept. 30, 2004
Karaoguz et al. US 2005/0233728 A1 Oct. 20, 2005
Rejection
Claims 1^4 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over the combination of Knox and Karaoguz. Final Act. 3^4.
2
Appeal 2017-008897
Application 14/698,707
Issue on Appeal
Did the Examiner err by finding that the combination of Knox and
Karaoguz teaches or suggests “if the call is determined to be an emergency
call, requesting contact information for a Public Service Answering Point
(PSAP) responsible for servicing emergency calls from a geographic
location of a broadband interface coupled with the terminal adapter,” as
recited in claim 1 ?
ANALYSIS
Appellant contends the combination of Knox and Karaoguz fails to
teach or suggest the disputed limitation. App. Br. 4—14. Appellant argues
Knox does not teach or suggest the disputed limitation but, instead, teaches
obtaining contact information for a PSAP from voice over IP (VoIP)
subscriber information such as a user profile that is initially set to a location
or updated based on GPS phone coordinates. App. Br. 5 (citing Knox 128).
Appellant further argues “Karaoguz discloses (at most) that a broadband
interface is associated with a location” and “the teaching that a broadband
interface ‘is associated with a location’ has no relation to the [disputed
limitation] of claim 1, which [is] generally directed to using location of a
broadband interface to request other information (e.g., to identify
appropriate PSAP contact information.” App. Br. 6; see also App. Br. 6—13
(discussing the specific portions of Karaoguz cited by the Examiner in the
Final Office Action).
Nonobviousness cannot be established by attacking the references
individually when the rejection is predicated upon a combination of prior art
3
Appeal 2017-008897
Application 14/698,707
disclosures. See In re Merck & Co. Inc., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir.
1986). Here, the Examiner finds Knox teaches if a call is determined to be
an emergency call, requesting contact information for a Public Service
Answering Point (PSAP) responsible for servicing emergency calls from a
geographic location of an interface. Ans. 4 (citing Knox || 24—29, 45). The
Examiner finds Karaoguz teaches that as a wireless device moves from one
location to another, the wireless device is connected to a network through a
broadband interface and that it would be obvious to modify Knox’s interface
to be a broadband interface, as taught by Karaoguz. Ans. 3^4. Appellant’s
arguments fail to address the combined teachings of the references as relied
upon by the Examiner and, therefore, are unpersuasive of error.
Accordingly, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in rejecting
claim 1 and claims 2—4, which depend from claim 1 and are not separately
argued with particularity. See App. Br. 14.
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1—4.
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