Ginger Chien

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Sep 12, 2019

13706962 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Sep. 12, 2019)

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.
13/706,962 12/06/2012 Ginger CHIEN 2012-0484 (P42746) 5247
83619 7590 09/12/2019
AT & T LEGAL DEPARTMENT - GB
ATTN: PATENT DOCKETING
ROOM 2A212
ONE AT & T WAY
BEDMINSTER, NJ 07921
EXAMINER
COSME, NATASHA W
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2465
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/12/2019 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):
eOfficeActionDocs@att.com
gbpatent@gbpatent.com
greenblum.bernsteinplc@gmail.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte GINGER CHIEN
____________
Appeal 2018-007337
Application 13/706,962
Technology Center 2400
____________

Before ERIC S. FRAHM, JOHN A. EVANS, and HUNG H. BUI,
Administrative Patent Judges.

EVANS, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appellant1 seeks our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the
Examiner’s Final Rejection of Claims 1–8, 11–13, and 15–23. App. Br. 1.
Claims 9, 10, and 14 are canceled. Final Act. 2. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.2

1 The Appeal Brief identifies AT&T MOBILITY II LLC, as the real party in
interest. App. Br. 3.
2 Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellant and the Examiner, we
refer to the Appeal Brief (filed December 26, 2017, “App. Br.”), the Reply
Appeal 2018-007337
Application 13/706,962

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The claims relate to systems and methods for providing a
communications service. See Abstract.

INVENTION
Claims 1, 19, and 20 are independent. An understanding of the
invention can be derived from a reading of illustrative Claim 1, which is
reproduced below with some formatting added:
1. A method for providing a communication service, the
method comprising:
receiving, by a communications device with a processor
and a memory, an address for establishing a communication
session over a wireless network, the address being input to the
communications device;
determining whether the address corresponds to a
communication recipient for which health characteristic data of
an individual is to be sent to supplement the communication
service;
placing a request for the communication session based on
the address and awaiting answer of the request;
monitoring the health characteristic data by the
communications device while the request is being placed and
the answer is awaited after determining that the address
corresponds to the communication recipient for which the
health characteristic data is to be sent to supplement the

Brief (filed July 10, 2018, “Reply Br.”), the Examiner’s Answer (mailed
May 10, 2018, “Ans.”), the Final Action (mailed July 26, 2017, “Final
Act.”), and the Specification (filed December 6, 2012, “Spec.”) for their
respective details.
Appeal 2018-007337
Application 13/706,962

3
communication service, the health characteristic data being data
from an environment at a location of the communications
device;
establishing the communication session with the
communication recipient over the wireless network based on
the address after monitoring the health characteristic data;
sending the health characteristic data over the wireless
network after establishing the communication session and
determining that the address corresponds to the communication
recipient for which the health characteristic data is to be sent to
supplement the communication service;
identifying additional health characteristic data for the
individual by the communications device after establishing the
communication session; and
using the additional health characteristic data to update
the health characteristic data used to supplement the
communication service.

References and Rejections3
Haller US 2001/0051787 A1 Dec. 13, 2001
Wang US 2008/0063169 A1 Mar. 13, 2008
Park US 8,036,630 B2 Oct. 11, 2011
Riggs US 2012/0052834 A1 Mar. 1, 2012
The Claims stand rejected as follows:
1. Claims 1–3, 5–8, 11–13, and 15–23 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.

3 The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent
provisions. Final Act. 2.
Appeal 2018-007337
Application 13/706,962

4
§ 103 as being unpatentable over Park, Wang, and Haller. Final Act.
3–23.
2. Claim 4 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable
over Park, Wang, Haller, and Riggs. Final Act. 23–24.

ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the rejections of Claims 1–8, 11–13, and 15–23 in
light of Appellant’s arguments that the Examiner erred. We consider
Appellant’s arguments as they are presented in the Appeal Brief, pages 13–
40.

CLAIMS 1–8, 11–13, AND 15–23: OBVIOUSNESS OVER
PARK, WANG, HALLER, AND RIGGS.
Appellant argues all claims as a group over the limitations of Claim 1.
See App. Br. 13. Therefore, we decide the appeal on the basis of
representative Claim 1, and refer to the rejected claims collectively herein as
“the claims.” See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv); In re King, 801 F.2d 1324,
1325 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Claim 1 recites, inter alia, “receiving, by a communications device
with a processor and a memory, an address for establishing a communication
session over a wireless network, the address being input to the
communications device.” Independent Claims 19 and 20 include similar
limitations. The Examiner finds Park teaches the address is input to the
Appeal 2018-007337
Application 13/706,962

5
communications device. Final Act. 4. However, the Examiner does not
identify a specific disclosure of Park, but rather, cites key input unit 25. Id.
Appellant contends the address upon which Park’s emergency call is
to be established is retrieved from a memory, but is not input into the
communication device, as claimed. App. Br. 19. Appellant argues the
Specification discloses the claimed addresses are detected as inputs from the
user via, e.g., an alpha-numeric interface. Id. (citing Spec., 21, ll. 13–17; 22,
ll. 17–21). Appellant further argues the term “input” must be given its plain
meaning. Id. at 20. Appellant contends Park does not disclose the input of
an address, upon which a communication session is to be established;
instead, Appellant argues Park’s object of his invention is to enable a user to
place an emergency call when the user is unaware of a nation’s emergency
call number. Id. (citing Park, col. 1, ll. 29–39).
In response, the Examiner takes the position that key input unit 25 of
Park has an emergency call key which, when operated by the user, outputs
key input data. Ans. 3. Citing “the instant application,” the Examiner finds
“telephony communications may be addressed to 911 or other government
service addresses, or help lines or complaint lines. Therefore, pressing of
the emergency call key is tantamount to address being input to the
communications device.” Ans. 3–4 (citing Spec. ¶ 43).
In reply, Appellant contends Park is silent regarding input of
addresses, but discloses emergency numbers are pre-stored. Reply Br. 6
(citing Park, col. 3, ll. 5–10). Appellant argues Park discloses the user may
be unaware of the emergency call number. Id.
Appeal 2018-007337
Application 13/706,962

6
The Examiner does not cite Park for a disclosure that a user inputs an
address. Instead, the Examiner cites Appellant’s own Specification for
suggesting that a user might input an address on a keypad. See Ans. 3–4
(citing Spec. ¶ 43). However, Appellant’s own disclosure cannot be used as
prior art against his claims. The Examiner fails to address Appellant’s
contention that Park discloses pre-stored call numbers. We find no
disclosure in the prior art that Park discloses the input of an address, nor
does the Examiner so direct our attention.
Because we find the cited art fails to teach at least one claimed
limitation, we decline to sustain the rejections of Claims 1–8, 11–13, and
15–23 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.

DECISION
The rejections of Claims 1–8, 11–13, and 15–23 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 is REVERSED.

REVERSED