Ex Parte Cesarini

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jun 26, 2012

11290917 (B.P.A.I. Jun. 26, 2012)

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.
11/290,917 11/30/2005 Andrea Cesarini 10022/714 8356
28164 7590 06/27/2012
ACCENTURE CHICAGO 28164
BRINKS HOFER GILSON & LIONE
P O BOX 10395
CHICAGO, IL 60610
EXAMINER
DOAN, KIET M
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2617
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/27/2012 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 BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
________________

Ex parte ANDREA CESARINI
________________

Appeal 2010-003934
Application 11/290,917
Technology Center 2600
________________

Before MAHSHID D. SAADAT, ERIC S. FRAHM and JOHN G. NEW,
Administrative Patent Judges.

NEW, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2010-003934
Application 11/290,917

2
SUMMARY
Appellant brings this appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the
Examiner’s final rejection of independent claims 1 and 12,1 which stand
rejected as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Lesley (US
2001/0000808 A1) in view of Engelhart (WO 03/069434 A2).
We affirm.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant describes the present invention in the following terms:
A telecommunications service provider architecture integrates
multiple architectures which include prepaid and post-paid
processing systems.

Abstract.
Independent claim 1 is representative of the invention2:

1. A convergent telecommunications system architecture
comprising:

a telecommunications support architecture comprising prepaid
rating balances and post-paid account balances for service
customers;

a prepaid architecture that tracks service usage for a prepaid
service and,

1 Appellant does not present separate patentability arguments for the
remaining claims and merely asserts that dependent claims 2-11 and 13-21
depend from claims 1 and 12, respectively, and should consequently also be
allowed. Similarly, Appellant argues the patentability of claims 5, 6, 15,
and 16 by merely stating that Kowarsch does not cure the deficiencies of
Lesley and Engelhart. (App. Br. 9).
2 Because Appellant argues that the Examiner erred with respect to identical
language in Claims 1 and 12, we choose Claim 1 as being representative.
Appeal 2010-003934
Application 11/290,917

3
a bi-directional messaging interface connecting the
telecommunications support architecture and the prepaid
architecture, the bi-directional messaging interface comprising:

a prepaid account refill interface from the telecommunications
support architecture to the prepaid architecture; and

a service usage interface from the prepaid architecture to the
telecommunications support architecture, the service usage
interface defining:

a service use event record comprising:

an event header; and

an event attribute list; and

multiple event type definitions, each comprising:

an event attribute definition which specifies event attributes for
insertion into the event attribute list in the service use event
record.

Br. 11.
ISSUE
Appellant argues that the Examiner erred in concluding that claim 1
was obvious under Lesley and Engelhart. Br. 5. Specifically, Appellant
contends that the Examiner erred in finding that the identical elements of
claim 1 that recite “multiple event type definitions, each comprising: an
event attribute definition which specifies event attributes for insertion into
the event attribute list in the service use event record” and “an event
header” were obvious under Lesley in view of Engelhart. Br. 5, 8.
Therefore, the issue is whether the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1 as
Appeal 2010-003934
Application 11/290,917

4
obvious over Lesley and Engelhart because the combination does not teach
or suggest the disputed claim term.
ANALYSIS
1. Claim limitation “multiple event type definitions, each comprising an
event attribute definition which specifies event attributes for insertion
into the event attribute list in the service use event record.”

Appellant argues that the Examiner erred in finding that Engelhart
teaches or suggests the claimed “multiple event type definitions, each
comprising: an event attribute definition which specifies event attributes for
insertion into the event attribute list in the service use event record” as
shown in Figure 2 of Engelhart. Br. 5. Appellant contends that Engelhart’s
teaching of an event record, that can be provided in a standard format or
configured to include data fields associated with a standard set of fields
(Engelhart, p. 8, ll. 29-31), prescribes a common event for each service and
thus “teaches directly away from defining event attributes for insertion into
an event attribute list for an, effectively configurable, service use event
record.” Br. 6 (emphasis in original). Appellant argues that the claimed
invention establishes multiple event type definitions that define event
attributes that can be inserted into the event attribute list. Id.
The Examiner responds that Engelhart clearly teaches that event
record includes a “variety data field” with a variety of defined terms, as
portrayed in Engelhart Figure 2. Ans. 9. The Examiner points out that
Claim 1 does not empirically recite what an “event type” can be, nor does it
indicate whether the event record varies in number and type of event
attributes for specific usages. Id. The Examiner consequently concludes
that the event record depicted in Engelhart Figure 2 reads on Appellant’s
Appeal 2010-003934
Application 11/290,917

5
Claim 1 element of “multiple event type definitions, each comprising: an
event attribute definition which specifies event attributes for insertion into
the event attribute list in the service use event record.” Id.
We find the Examiner’s reasoning and conclusion to be reasonable
and supported by the evidence of record. We note that Engelhart teaches,
with respect to the variety data field depicted in Figure 2, that “[t]he event
record can be configured to include a variety of data fields associated with,
for example, [. . .] types of service, service durations, dates and times of
service requests, completion indicators, service quality, and service
features.” Engelhart, p. 8, ll. 18-22. Thus, Engelhart explicitly teaches a
configurable event record field that can be variously altered and configured
to fit specific usages. The Examiner’s conclusion that the Engelhart
specification therefore reads on the portion of Claim 1 reciting “multiple
event type definitions, each comprising: an event attribute definition which
specifies event attributes for insertion into the event attribute list in the
service use event record” is reasonable and we consequently adopt it.
2. Claim limitation “event header.”
Appellant next argues that the Examiner erred in finding that the
portion of Claim 1 disclosing an “event header” is obvious over Engelhart.
Br. 8. Appellant argues that the Examiner erred in finding that the portion
of Figure 2 of Engelhart that recites “EVENT RECORD” depicts the
claimed event header, but is merely a label and does not describe the
representative event record depicted in Figure 2, nor does it have any other
special meaning, in contrast to the explicit requirement for an event header
in Claim 1. Id.
Appeal 2010-003934
Application 11/290,917

6
The Examiner responds that Engelhart Figure 2 teaches an event
header by illustrating the header of each event such as “Provider ID” [sic],
“Subscriber ID,” which reads on “an [e]vent header”. Ans. 11. Appellant
replies that Engelhart “identifies not a single data field in Figure 2 as a
header of any sort. Instead, Engelhart explains that the data fields store data
items used by, for example, service charges associated with events.” Reply
Br. 7. Therefore, argues Appellant, Engelhart does not teach or suggest the
Claim 1’s recited “event header.”
We do not find Appellant’s argument persuasive. Table 8 of
Appellant’s specification defines “an event header that extends up to the
‘Authorization Code’ field, followed by event attributes.” Spec. p. 22, para.
0079. The data fields of the thus-defined “event header” include “event
source,” “event type,” “event DTM” (event date and time), “event cost,”
etc. These are substantially identical to the fields in Engelhart’s Figure 2
“Provider ID,” “Service type,” “Service Date,” “Service Time,” “Event
Cost.” In other words, the standard information identifying the origin and
nature of the event record disclosed by Engelhart teaches and suggests the
“service use event record comprising: an event header and an event attribute
list; and multiple event type definitions, each comprising: an event attribute
definition which specifies event attributes for insertion into the event
attribute list in the service use event record” recited in Claim 1.
Consequently, we conclude that the Examiner did not err in finding that the
“event header” recited in Claim 1 was obvious over Engelhart.
Because we find that the Examiner did not err in concluding that
independent Claims 1 and 12 were obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a), we
will sustain the rejection of independent claims 1 and 12. For similar
Appeal 2010-003934
Application 11/290,917

7
reasons, we will also sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 2-11 and
13-21, which depend from claims 1 and 12 respectively under 35 U.S.C. §
103(a).
CONCLUSION
Based on the analysis above, we conclude that the Examiner did not
err in rejecting claim 1, as well as claims 2-21 falling together with
representative claim 1, under 35 U.S.C. §103(a).
DECISION
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-21 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). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(1)(iv) (2010).

AFFIRMED

ke