Ex Parte Ghuli et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Oct 31, 2018

14969831 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 31, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
14/969,831 12/15/2015
48500 7590 11/02/2018
SHERIDAN ROSS P.C.
1560 BROADWAY, SUITE 1200
DENVER, CO 80202
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Basavraj Ghuli
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.
4366-788 6393
EXAMINER
HAMMONDS, MARCUS C
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2645
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
11/02/2018 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):
cjacquet@sheridanross.com
pair_Avaya@firsttofile.com
edocket@sheridanross.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte BASA VRAJ GHULI, DINESH MUDE, GURPREET KHALSA,
and TARUSH ABRA YA JAIN
Appeal2018-003474
Application 14/969,831 1
Technology Center 2600
Before MARC S. HOFF, CATHERINE SHIANG, and
JASON M. REPKO, Administrative Patent Judges.
SHIANG, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
rejection of claims 1-3, 6-12, 15-19, and 21-23, which are all the claims
pending and rejected in the application. 2 We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.
1 Appellants identify Avaya Inc. as the real party in interest. App. Br. 2.
2 Claims 4 and 13 are objected to, but are allowable if rewritten in
independent form. Final Act. 11. Therefore, claims 4 and 13 are not before
us.
Appeal2018-003474
Application 14/969,831
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
According to the Specification, the present invention relates to
management of call logs in communication devices. See Spec. ,r 1. Claim 1
is exemplary:
1. A system comprising:
a microprocessor,
a computer readable medium, coupled with the microprocessor and
comprising microprocessor readable and executable instructions for a
communication processor;
the communication processor executed by the microprocessor that
receives a request to establish a communication with a first address of
record, wherein the request to establish the communication is for an
incoming call from a calling device of a caller and wherein the calling
device of the caller is one of a plurality of communication devices associated
with an address of record of the caller; retrieves information that identifies
the calling device of the caller from the plurality of communication devices
associated with the address of record of the caller, forks the communication
request to a plurality of communication devices sharing the first address of
record; stores the request to establish the communication and the
information that identifies the calling device of the caller in a call log entry
in a call log; and sends an updated call log or an updated call log entry to at
least one of the plurality of communication devices; and
an event detector executed by the microprocessor that receives an
event associated with the call log entry, wherein the event is based on
information associated with the calling device of the caller or a
communication device that is not initially part of an established
communication session; and updates the call log entry in the call log in
response to receiving the event associated with the call log entry.
2
Appeal2018-003474
Application 14/969,831
References and Rejections
Claims 1, 2, 6-11, 15-18, 22, and 23 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Azim (US 2015/0222744 Al;
published Aug. 6, 2015) and Brunson (US 2010/0325249 Al; published Dec.
23, 2010).
Claims 3 and 12 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Azim, Brunson, and Mansfield (US 2003/0185365 Al;
published Oct. 2, 2003). 3
Claims 19 and 21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Azim and Mansfield.
ANALYSIS 4
Claims 1-3, 6-12, 15-18, 22, and 23
We have reviewed the Examiner's rejection in light of Appellants'
contentions and the evidence of record. We concur with Appellants'
contention that the Examiner erred in determining the cited portions of Azim
and Brunson collectively teach
wherein the calling device of the caller is one of a plurality of
communication devices associated with an address of record of
the caller; retrieves information that identifies the calling
device of the caller from the plurality of communication devices
associated with the address of record of the caller,
as recited in independent claim 1 (emphasis added). See App. Br. 9-12;
Reply Br. 4--7.
3 The Final Rejection's heading omits Brunson, which appears to be a
typographical error. See Final Act. 8.
4 Appellants raise additional arguments. Because the identified issues are
dispositive of the appeal, we do not need to reach the additional arguments.
3
Appeal2018-003474
Application 14/969,831
In the Final Action, the Examiner finds "Azim fails to teach" the
above limitation. Final Act. 4. The Examiner then cites Bronson's paragraph
55 for teaching the above limitation. See Final Act. 4.
In response to Appellants' arguments, the Examiner further cites
Bronson's Fig. 4 and paragraphs 2 and 44, and Azim's Figures 4 and 5 and
paragraphs 27 and 48. See Ans. 2-3.
We have reviewed the cited Bronson's and Azim's excerpts, and they
do not describe
wherein the calling device of the caller is one of a plurality of
communication devices associated with an address of record of
the caller; retrieves information that identifies the calling
device of the caller from the plurality of communication devices
associated with the address of record of the caller,
as required by claim 1 ( emphasis added). Contrary to the claim requirement,
the cited prior art excerpts describe identifying information of the calling
device of the callee-not the caller. 5 As a result, we agree with Appellants
that the Examiner has not adequately explained why the proposed
combination would have taught the italicized limitation. See App. Br. 9-12.
Because the Examiner fails to provide sufficient evidence or
explanation to support the rejection, we are constrained by the record to
reverse the Examiner's rejection of claim 1.
Independent claim 10 recites a claim limitation that is substantively
similar to the disputed limitation of claim 1. See claim 10. Therefore, for
similar reasons, we reverse the Examiner's rejection of independent claim
10.
5 Identifying the calling device of the caller requires additional functions,
which the Examiner has not articulated.
4
Appeal2018-003474
Application 14/969,831
We also reverse the Examiner's rejection of corresponding dependent
claims 2, 3, 6-9, 11, 12, 15-18, 22, and 23. Although the Examiner cites an
additional reference for rejecting some dependent claims, the Examiner has
not shown the additional reference overcomes the deficiency discussed
above in the rejection of claim 1.
Claims 19 and 21
We have reviewed the Examiner's rejection in light of Appellants'
contentions and the evidence of record. We concur with Appellants'
contention that the Examiner erred in determining the cited portions of Azim
and Mansfield collectively teach
wherein the request to establish the communication is for an
answered communication with a first one of the plurality of
communication devices; ... wherein the event associated with
the call log entry is identifying that a second communication
device of the plurality of communication devices has bridged
onto the communication,
as recited in independent claim 19 (emphases added). See App. Br. 12-14;
Reply Br. 7-8.
In the Final Action, the Examiner finds that "Azim fails to teach" the
above limitations. Final Act. 10. The Examiner then cites Mansfield's
paragraphs 45, 51, 81, and 97 for teaching the above limitation. See Final
Act. 10.
In response to Appellants' arguments, the Examiner finds Azim' s Fig.
8 and paragraph 53 alternatively teach the above limitations. See Ans. 4.
We have reviewed the cited Mansfield's and Azim's excerpts, and
they do not describe
5
Appeal2018-003474
Application 14/969,831
wherein the request to establish the communication is for an
answered communication with a first one of the plurality of
communication devices; ... wherein the event associated with
the call log entry is identifying that a second communication
device of the plurality of communication devices has bridged
onto the communication,
as required by claim 19 ( emphases added). Contrary to the claim
requirement, the cited prior art excerpts describe connecting a single device
to a call.
Because the Examiner fails to provide sufficient evidence or
explanation to support the rejection, we are constrained by the record to
reverse the Examiner's rejection of claim 19.
We also reverse the Examiner's rejection of corresponding dependent
claim 21.
DECISION
We reverse the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-3, 6-12, 15-
19, and 21-23.
REVERSED
6