Ex Parte Camilleri et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Oct 25, 2017

12295888 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 25, 2017)

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.
12/295,888 03/23/2010 Michael Camilleri 357553.00005 2735
78905 7590 10/27/2017
Saul Ewing Arnstein & Lehr LLP (Philadelphia)
Attn: Patent Docket Clerk
Centre Square West
1500 Market Street, 38th Floor
Philadelphia, PA 19102-2186
EXAMINER
NEALON, WILLIAM
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2643
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
10/27/2017 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):
patents@saul.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte MICHAEL CAMILLERI and JOSE LUIS MERINO GONZALEZ
Appeal 2017-006676
Application 12/295,888
Technology Center 2600
MARC S. HOFF, JOHNNY A. KUMAR, and TERRENCE W. McMILLIN,
Administrative Patent Judges.
KUMAR, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a non-final rejection
of claims 1—8, 10, 12—20, and 22. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b).
We affirm.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
Appellants’ invention relates to a call routing method and device.
Claim 1, which is illustrative of the invention, reads as follows:1
1. A method of enabling call routing from a wireless device,
comprising the steps of:
1 Independent claim 12 recites similar subject matter.
Appeal 2017-006676
Application 12/295,888
(a) the wireless device using a voice communications software
application downloadable to the device, wherein the application is embodied
on a nontransitory medium of the device, that enables the device to
communicate with a remote service provider device over a wireless link;
(b) as a first step, the wireless device receiving a call initiation from a
user, wherein the user initiates a call to a third party by entering or selecting
the telephone number of the third party the user wishes to communicate
with, using an interface generated locally on the wireless device using the
downloadable voice communications software application without any input
from the remote service provider device;
in which the method comprises the further and later steps of:
(c) the voice communications software application then automatically
initiating a data communication to the remote service provider device, that
data communication being the first such data communication with the
remote service provider device relating to the call, and the voice
communications software application automatically providing to the remote
service provider device all the required information needed by the remote
service provider device to correctly set-up and forward a required voice
communication, wherein the voice communication is a voice data
communication.
The Rejections2
Claims 1, 2, 7, 8, 10, 12, 14—17, 20, and 22 are rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being anticipated by Chatterjee et al. (US
2007/0223401 Al; published Sept. 27, 2007).
Claims 3 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Chatterjee et al. in view of Chien (US 7,551,913 Bl;
issued June 23, 2009).
2 The Examiner has withdrawn the 35 U.S.C. § 101 rejection of claim 22.
Ans. 5—6.
2
Appeal 2017-006676
Application 12/295,888
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 (a) as being unpatentable
over Chatterjee et al. in view of Sever et al. (WO 2005/117524 A2;
published December 2005).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 (a) as being unpatentable
over Chatterjee et al. in view of Hughes et al. (US 2007/0280464 Al;
published Dec. 6, 2007).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 (a) as being unpatentable
over Chatterjee et al. in view of Takeuchi (US 2002/0105946 Al; published
Aug. 8, 2002).
Claims 18 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Chatterjee et al. in view of Kung et al. (US 7,075,918 Bl;
published July 11, 2006).
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellants’
arguments that the Examiner has erred. We disagree with Appellants’
conclusions. We adopt as our own the findings and reasons set forth by the
Examiner in the Examiner’s Answer in response to Appellants’ Appeal
Brief. We highlight the following for emphasis.
Appellants’ argument that the Examiner used impermissible hindsight
in rejecting claim 1 over Chatterjee is not persuasive. See App. Br. 7-10.
Appellants have failed to identify one or more limitations of claim 1 which
are not disclosed or suggested by Chatterjee. We agree with the Examiner
that each element of claim 1 is properly disclosed by the prior art. Ans. 7.
We further agree with the Examiner that Appellants’ assertion that “the
passages of the Description as a whole cited by the Examiner ... do not fall
3
Appeal 2017-006676
Application 12/295,888
within claim 1” (App. Br. 11) does not convey which elements of claim 1
are allegedly not disclosed by the prior art. See Ans. 6.
Appellants then contend that Provisional Application NO. 60/784,747
is not properprior art. Br. 12—19 (emphasis omitted).
The Examiner responds,
Examiner has considered Appellants comments regarding the dates of
Chatterjee et al. and the claims on file. (Brief, pp.l 1-19)[.] Examiner
notes that the previous analysis for the rejection of claim 1 provides
citations of both the published application of Chatterjee and
the provisional application that Chatterjee claims priority to. Upon
review of the cited portions, Examiner views the cited portions of the
PG-PUB as teaching the claim limitations. That the previous Examiner
offered the courtesy of outlining the corresponding passages of
the provisional application only demonstrates that the Examiner was
showing the subject matter of the PG-PUB relied upon was supported
in the earlier filed provisional application. Examiner, after reviewing
the provisional application 60/784,747, finds that the priority claim of
application 11/726,511 to 60/784,747 is valid as the claims of
11/726,511 are supported by the provisional.
Ans. 2—5 and 7.
We observe no Reply Brief is of record to rebut the Examiner’s
findings and responses to Appellants’ arguments. Therefore, in the absence
of persuasive rebuttal evidence or argument to persuade us otherwise, we
adopt the Examiner’s findings and underlying reasoning, which are
incorporated herein by reference.
Consequently, we conclude there is no reversible error in the
Examiner’s rejections of claims 1—8, 10, 12—20, and 22.
4
Appeal 2017-006676
Application 12/295,888
DECISION
The decision of the Examiner rejecting claims 1—8, 10, 12—20, and 22
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)(l)(iv).
AFFIRMED
5