Ex Parte Barclay et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jul 14, 2014

11143835 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 14, 2014)

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.
11/143,835 06/02/2005 Deborah L. Barclay LUTZ 2 00373 9484
48116 7590 07/15/2014
FAY SHARPE/LUCENT
1228 Euclid Avenue, 5th Floor
The Halle Building
Cleveland, OH 44115-1843
EXAMINER
DEANE JR, WILLIAM J
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2652
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/15/2014 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
________________

Ex parte DEBORAH L. BARCLAY, DAVID S. BENCO,
SANJEEV MAHAJAN, THOMAS LEE McROBERTS, and
RAYMOND LEROY RUGGENO1
________________

Appeal 2012-004750
Application 11/143,835
Technology Center 2600
________________

Before JEFFREY N. FREDMAN, CHRISTOPHER G. PAULRAJ, and
ROBERT A. POLLOCK, Administrative Patent Judges.

POLLOCK, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 2, 3, 9, 11, 17, 19, and 21-24. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.

STATEMENT OF CASE
Appellants’ invention is directed to selectively blocking incoming
calls to a mobile communications unit such as a cell phone, based on a

1 Appellants identify Lucent Technologies Inc. as the real party in interest.
(App. Br. 2).
Appeal 2012-004750
Application 11/143,835

2
threshold number of calls per unit time from a calling party. Exemplary
independent claim 9 recites:
9. A method of selectively blocking incoming call
attempts to a communications unit, the method
comprising:
for an incoming call attempt from a given calling party to
the communications unit,
determining whether the given calling party has
attempted a threshold number of calls to the
communications unit within a specified time
interval;
selectively blocking the incoming call attempt if the
given calling party has attempted the threshold
number of calls to the communications unit within
the specified time interval; and
allowing the incoming call attempt to proceed if the
given calling party has attempted less than the
threshold number of calls to the communications
unit within the specified time interval;
wherein the communications unit is a mobile
communications unit, and
wherein a mobile switching center associated with the
mobile communications unit is configured to
determine whether the given calling party has
attempted a threshold number of calls to the
communications unit within a specified time
interval, and to selectively block the incoming call
attempt if the given calling party has attempted the
threshold number of calls to the communications
unit within the specified time interval.

Claims 2, 3, and 9, stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Rudokas2 in view of Chin.3

2 Rudokas et al., U.S. 5,555,551, issued Sept. 10, 1996.
Appeal 2012-004750
Application 11/143,835

3
Claims 11, 17, 19, and 21-24 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as unpatentable over Rudokas in view of Chin and further in view of Foti.4

ANALYSIS
The Examiner relies on Rodukas as the primary reference in finding
claims 2, 3, 9, 11, 17, 19, and 21-24 unpatentable under § 35 U.S.C. 103(a).
Since both rejections turn on the same issues, we will consider them
together. Rodukas relates to “[a] method and apparatus for fraud control in
cellular telephone systems,” wherein “[c]all records from a switch are
scanned to identify a fraudulent cellular phone based on its behavior.”
(Rodukas, Abstract.) In particular, Rodukas states:
A control channel editor intercepts a call origination
request transmitted from a cellular phone to the cell site,
and compares one or more characteristics of the cellular
phone transmitting the call origination request to the
database of identifiers. The control channel editor then
prevents the completion of the phone call when the
comparison indicates that the cellular phone is
fraudulent. The call origination request can be prevented
from completing by (1) re-routing the call to a customer
service or “fraud hot line” number, (2) interrupting the
call origination request, (3) transmitting a “hang-up”
message to the phone, (4) transmitting a “hang-up”
message to the cell site, or (5) transmitting a “teardown”
message to a switch.

(Id. at col. 2, ll. 30-42.)

3 Chin et al., U.S. 2004/0203575, published Oct. 14, 2004.
4 Foti, U.S. 5,960,338, issued Sept. 28, 1999.
Appeal 2012-004750
Application 11/143,835

4
Rodukas further discloses that the identification of fraudulent phones
involves the comparison of a cellular phone placing the call with an
identification database, preferably, a “negative validation database
(containing known fraudulent cellular phones).” (Id. at col. 5, ll. 39-49.)
Rodukas teaches that a potentially fraudulent phone may be identified by its
radio frequency (RF) signature but “secondary pattern data, such as the cell
site, MIN/ESN combination, call history, the called number, call frequency,
call time, station, class, etc., can be used to validate a close match.” (Id. at
col. 6, ll. 29-41; see also col. 5., ll. 45-52.) Rodukas further discloses that
call records may be scanned for other activities associated with potentially
fraudulent activity. (Id. at col. 7, ll. 22-32.) Such criteria include:
2. Excessive number of call attempts made by a cellular
phone within a given time period. For example, more
than one call attempt per hour could result in the
assignment of 15 points towards an alarm threshold.
. . .
6. Excessive number of call attempts to specific NPA/
NXXX codes made by a cellular phone within a given
time period. For example, more than one call attempt
per hour could result in the assignment of 15 points
towards an alarm threshold.

(Id. at col. 7, ll. 39-42, 58-62.)

The Examiner finds that Rodukas teaches or suggests all elements of
independent claim 9, for example, with the exception of a mobile switching
center (for which the Examiner relies upon the teachings of Chin).5 (Ans. 4-
6.) In particular, the Examiner finds that the fraud control system of

5 Rodukas is similarly essential to the Examiner’s rejection of independent
claims 17 and 19. (See Ans. 6-7.)
Appeal 2012-004750
Application 11/143,835

5
Rodukas fairly suggests selectively blocking an incoming call attempt if a
calling party has attempted a threshold number of calls to a party’s cell
phone within a specific time interval as set forth in independent claim 9
because, inter alia, Rodukas teaches that “call frequency and [] a called
number were taken into consideration in blocking a call attempt.” (Id. at 7
(see, e.g., Rodukas, col. 6, ll. 36-41; col. 5, ll. 49-52.)
The Examiner also relies on the criteria for potentially fraudulent
activity set forth in Rodukas column 7. In addressing column 7, lines 58-62
of Rodukas, the Examiner finds that the reference teaches that an
“[e]xcessive number of call attempts to specific NPA/NXXX codes made by
a cellular phone within a given time period,” contributes to an alarm
threshold which may result in blocking calls to a communications unit.
(Ans. 8-9 (emphasis in original).)
Appellants argue that the recitation of “NPA/NXXX codes” at
Rodukas column 7, lines 58-62, refers to a block of numbers defined by
[A] three digit “NPA” portion indicating the “area code”
or “numbering plan area”, where N can represent any of
the numbers 2-9, and as also including a three-digit
“NXX” portion indicating a “central office code”
referring to the second three-digit set of a 10-digit
telephone number, where N can be any of the numbers 2-
9 and where X can be any of the numbers 1-9.

(Reply Br. 10.)6 Applying Appellants’ definition, the Examiner finds that
Rodukas column 7, lines 58-59 reads on claim 9 because the “the threshold

6 As the Examiner presents neither an alternative definition nor a reasoned
explanation of why Appellants’ construction is incorrect (see Ans. 7-8), we
accept Appellants’ definition of this term.
Appeal 2012-004750
Application 11/143,835

6
can be reached by the same caller calling the same number over and over or
by the same caller calling different numbers in the block of numbers.” (Ans.
9.) And “if one can block a call to a specific block of numbers after a
threshold within a given time is reached . . . it would have been obvious to
one of ordinary skill in the art to have blocked a call to a specific number
after a threshold within a given time period is reached.” (Id. at 9-10.)
Appellants contend, however, that Rudokas attempts to block “all call
attempts from the identified fraudulent cell phone calling party, which is
entirely different from the recited operation in the method of claim 9.”
(Reply Br. 13 (italics in original).) In other words,
[W]hereas Rudokas seeks to detect and quarantine
fraudulent calling devices, in some cases in whole or in
part based upon call attempts to a block of numbers,
claim 9 involves selective call blocking with respect to a
specific called number if a given calling party has
attempted a threshold number of calls to that number
within a specified time interval, but allows the incoming
call (to that called number) to proceed otherwise, which
is incompatible with the goals and teachings of Rudokas.

(Reply Br. 13 (italics in original).) We agree with Appellants. The result of
repeated calls to a single number in Rudokas would result in the complete
inability of the calling device to call any number since the system would
“prevent further access by the fraudulent cellular phone” (Rudokas, col. 8, ll.
36-37). This differs from the claim, which would limit calls to a specific
number, but permit calls to other numbers. Rudokas therefore fails to teach
or suggest all elements of independent claim 9 including the requirements
that:
Appeal 2012-004750
Application 11/143,835

7
[F]or an incoming call attempt from a given calling party
to the communications unit, determining whether the
given calling party has attempted a threshold number of
calls to the communications unit within a specified time
interval; [and] selectively blocking the incoming call
attempt if the given calling party has attempted the
threshold number of calls to the communications unit
within the specified time interval.

We find this equally applies to independent claims 17 and 21.
As the Examiner has not identified any teachings in the secondary
references to supply the missing elements of independent claims 9, 17, and
21, we cannot sustain the instant rejections.

DECISION
The Examiner’s decision with respect to claims 2, 3, 9, 11, 17, 19, and
21-24 is reversed.

REVERSED

cdc