Ex parte VOIT

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Apr 28, 2000

08388058 (B.P.A.I. Apr. 28, 2000)

1
THIS OPINION WAS NOT WRITTEN FOR PUBLICATION
The opinion in support of the decision being entered today
(1) was not written for publication in a law journal and
(2) is not binding precedent of the Board.
Paper No. 17
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
__________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
__________
Ex parte ERIC A. VOIT
__________
Appeal No. 1998-0015
Application 08/388,058
__________
HEARD: APRIL 18, 2000
__________
Before HAIRSTON, KRASS and GROSS, Administrative Patent
Judges.
HAIRSTON, Administrative Patent Judge.
This is an appeal from the final rejection of claims
1 through 36. After submission of the brief, the examiner
allowed claims 9 through 19 and 32 through 36. Accordingly,
claims 1 through 8 and 20 through 31 remain before us on
appeal.
The disclosed invention relates to a system in which
Appeal No. 1998-0015
Application No. 08/388,058
2
calls from calling stations to a virtual telephone number are
routed to destination stations.
Claim 1 is illustrative of the claimed invention, and it
reads as follows:
1. For use in a system that determines routing
instructions for telephone calls to be
routed
from calling stations within various geographic
territories to destination stations when the calls
are placed to a virtual telephone number, an
arrangement whereby a subscriber for the virtual
number can prescribe which destination stations shall
receive calls from which geographic territories,
comprising:
(a) a first database having data relating
telephone numbers of the calling stations
to geographical indicators of corresponding
locations of the calling stations;
(b) a processor configured for assigning a
relationship between at least some of the
geographical indicators and telephone numbers
for the destination stations using a graphical
user interface;
(c) a second database storing the relationship
between at least some of the geographical
indicators and telephone numbers for the
destination stations as assigned by said
processor, whereby for each call to the
virtual number from one of the calling
stations the first database is accessed
using a telephone number for the calling
station to produce a geographical indicator
for the calling station for entry into the
second database, and the second database yields
Appeal No. 1998-0015
Application No. 08/388,058
3
a telephone number for a destination stations
[sic] servicing the area indicated by the
geographical
indicator for inclusion in a routing instruction
for the call.
Appeal No. 1998-0015
Application No. 08/388,058
4
The reference relied on by the examiner is:
Moore et al. (Moore) 5,506,897 Apr. 9,
1996
Claims 1 through 8 and 20 through 31 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being anticipated by Moore.
Reference is made to the final rejection, the brief and
the answer for the respective positions of the appellant and
the examiner.
OPINION
The only argument presented by appellant is that column
23, lines 19 through 23 of Moore does not disclose a
“graphical user interface” (Brief, pages 6 through 8).
According to the appellant (Brief, pages 6 and 7):
Column [2]3, lines 9-13 indicate that “[t]he
client . . . provides a detailed street map with the
polygon service area of the service location drawn
on the street map . . .” Figure 13 shows what the
client provides. It is clear that the drawing
provided by the client indicated at 640 in Figure 13
refers to a drawing on a physical map designed to
communicate to the user of the Moore invention where
the boundaries should be placed. It does not imply
at all the use of a graphical user interface. The
information from the marked up street map provided
by the client is entered into the system as
described in the portion of the specification
referred to by the Examiner, namely, column 23,
lines 19-23. This interpretation of column 23 is
reinforced by the discussion relating to Figure 4.
Appeal No. 1998-0015
Application No. 08/388,058
5
In Figure 4, service area 220 is also shown drawn on
a map. For that particular implementation,
Appeal No. 1998-0015
Application No. 08/388,058
6
The client provides a client service
locations file 109 (Fig. 1A) of service
locations in machine readable form with
information and format as shown in Table 3.
The file 109 can be created by, for example,
a commonly available word processing program
or a database program, and submitted on a
floppy disk or other suitable media . . .
[column 15, lines 60-65].
The service radius (e.g. 2.5 mile radius from
the Mypizza Restorante) of the Moore et al. patent
is determined from a centroid table for each zip+4
zip code entry. If the zip+4 is determined to be at
or inside the service area radius, a raw client
table record is written that includes the zip+4
code, the client telephone number for the instant
service location and the distance of the zip+4
centroid to the service location.
Appellant concludes (Brief, page 7) that “[t]here is
absolutely nothing in Moore et al. which suggests that a
graphical user interface is utilized to define the service
area.”
In response to appellant’s argument, the examiner
contends (Answer, page 4) that “the Moore et al. reference
does provide for the use of a graphical user interface in that
it suggests using a commercially available GIS (Geographic
Information System - a computer program that provides visual
interpretation of information represented by a coordinate
system) such as Infomark for Windows (col. 23, lines 13-25).”
Appeal No. 1998-0015
Application No. 08/388,058
7
Inasmuch as an explanation of the GIS system is not
present in the Moore patent, and the examiner has not provided
such an explanation, we do not have any evidence in the record
before us that the GIS system in Moore (column 2, line 66
through column 3, line 8; and column 23, lines 19 through 23)
uses a “graphical user interface” in the “linking of the
geographic information to telephone numbers.”
In summary, the 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) rejection of claims
1 through 8 and 20 through 31 is reversed because the examiner
has not presented a prima facie case of anticipation.
DECISION
The decision of the examiner rejecting claims 1 through
8 and 20 through 31 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) is reversed.
REVERSED
)
KENNETH W. HAIRSTON )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
ERROL A. KRASS )
Administrative Patent Judge ) APPEALS AND
)
Appeal No. 1998-0015
Application No. 08/388,058
8
) INTERFERENCES
)
ANITA PELLMAN GROSS )
Administrative Patent Judge )
KWH:hh
McDERMOTT, WILL & EMERY
600 13TH STREET N.W.
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005