Ex Parte Spear et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

May 30, 2012

11533164 (B.P.A.I. May. 30, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
_____________

Ex parte STEPHEN L. SPEAR, SURESH KUMAR CHINTADA,
P. SETHURAMALINGAM, and SUBIR SAHA
_____________

Appeal 2010-000715
Application 11/533,164
Technology Center 3600
______________

Before, KRISTEN L. DROESCH, DAVID M. KOHUT, and
JASON V. MORGAN, Administrative Patent Judges.

KOHUT, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal 2010-000715
Application 11/533,164

2
This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the final
rejection of claims 17-27.
1,2
We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm the Examiner’s rejection of these claims.

INVENTION
The invention is directed to a method and system for processing
multiple communication services. See Abstract. Claim 17 is representative
of the invention and is reproduced below:
17. A method for a personalized agent to apply user policies to
a plurality of communication services, the method comprising:
receiving, at the personalized agent, a session of a first
communication service;
applying, at the personalized agent, a first user policy to the
session of the first communication service;
based, at least in part, on the first user policy, taking a first
action with respect to the session of the first communication
service;
receiving, at the personalized agent, a session of a second
communication service, the second communication service
different from the first communication service;
applying, at the personalized agent, a second user policy to
the session of the second communication service; and
based, at least in part, on the second user policy, taking a
second action with respect to the session of the second
communication service.

1
Claims 1-16 were previously cancelled.
2
Appellants seek review of the rejection of independent claims 17 and 25
but do not seek review of dependent claims 18-24 and 26 and 27. App. Br.
5-6. However, since Appellants appeal from the decision of the Examiner in
the Final Office Action (see Notice of Appeal filed Jan. 29, 2009) in which
all of claims 17-27 were rejected, we render our Decision on all of claims
17-27.
Appeal 2010-000715
Application 11/533,164

3

REFERENCE
Neale US 6,829,349 B1 Dec. 7, 2004

REJECTION AT ISSUE
Claims 17-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a) as being
anticipated by Neale. Ans. 3-6.

ISSUE
Did the Examiner err in finding that Neale discloses applying user
policies to multiple communication services?

ANALYSIS
Independent claims 17 and 25 require user policies to be applied to
sessions of two or more communication services. Claims 18-24 and 26 and
27 are dependent upon claims 17 and 25 (respectively). Appellants argue
that Neale does not disclose this limitation since Neale only discloses
applying a user policy to one communication service, i.e., an incoming
telephone call. App. Br. 5; Reply Br. 2. We disagree.
Appellants contend that one communication service is an incoming
telephone call and another communication service is something different
than an incoming telephone call. Reply Br. 2. However, we note that
Appellants have not provided, nor does Appellants’ Specification give, a
specific definition for the term “communication service.” Thus, the
Examiner’s interpretation of “communication service” as the client device
making the call (Ans. 7) is reasonable and consistent with Appellants’
Specification. As such, we agree with the Examiner’s finding that Neale
Appeal 2010-000715
Application 11/533,164

4
discloses the disputed limitation since Neale discloses an agent routing the
first communication service, i.e., a call from a first client device, and the
second communication service, i.e., a call from a second client device that is
different from the first client device since it is a different device, based upon
user-defined software, to their respective locations. Ans. 7.
Therefore, for the reasons stated supra, we sustain the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 17-27.

CONCLUSION
The Examiner did not err in finding that Neale discloses applying user
policies to multiple communication services.

SUMMARY
The Examiner’s decision to reject claims 17-27 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

ELD