Ex Parte Cuckson et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

May 21, 2012

10404817 (B.P.A.I. May. 21, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________________

Ex parte LEE T. CUCKSON and CHAD SWIERCZEK
____________________

Appeal 2010-002008
Application 10/404,817
Technology Center 2100
____________________

Before DEBRA K. STEPHENS, ERIC B. CHEN, and JUSTIN T. ARBES,
Administrative Patent Judges.

STEPHENS, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal 2010-002008
Application 10/404,817

2
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) (2002) from a final
rejection of claims 1-3, 5, 7-10, 12, 14-16, 18, and 20. We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). Claims 4, 6, 11, 13, 17, and 19 have been canceled.
We AFFIRM.
Introduction
According to Appellants, the invention relates to a system and method
for restricting a telephone number’s availability for assignment (Abstract).

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

Exemplary Claim
Claim 1 is an exemplary claim and is reproduced below:

1. A method of restricting a telephone number’s
availability for assignment pending resolution of a discrepancy
relating to the telephone number's status in a telephone number
inventory management system, the method comprising:

providing a telephone number inventory management
system wherein each telephone number in a plurality of
telephone numbers is represented by a data record, wherein the
data records comprise data representing the telephone number
and data representing a rule relating to the telephone number,
wherein the rule relating to the telephone number is selected
from a list of rules, each of which rules represents a unique
combination of states for telephone numbers among a plurality
of data environments;

identifying a specific rule that reflects a discrepancy
among the plurality of data environments;

Appeal 2010-002008
Application 10/404,817

3
once a specific rule that reflects a discrepancy has been
identified, identifying a particular telephone number relating to
the specific rule; and

after the particular telephone number has been identified
but before the telephone number has been requested, sending a
message to at least one of the plurality of data environments
that restricts the availability of the particular telephone number
for assignment.

Prior Art
Kannan US 6,298,352 B1 Oct. 2, 2001
Cuckson ‘495 US 7,162,495 B2 Jan. 1, 2007
Schneider US 2008/0010365 Jan. 10, 2008
Cuckson ‘276 US 7,395,276 B2 Jul. 1, 2008

Rejections
(1) Claims 1, 7, 8, 9, 14, 15, and 20 are rejected on the ground of
nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over
claims of Cuckson ‘495 and Kannan.
(2) Claims 1-3, 5, 7-10, 12, 14-16, 18, and 20 are rejected on the ground
of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable
over claims of Cuckson ‘276 and Kannan.
(3) Claims 1-3, 5, 7-10, 12, 14-16, 18, and 20 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Kannan and Schneider.

Appeal 2010-002008
Application 10/404,817

4
GROUPING OF CLAIMS

We address the obviousness-type double patenting rejections as a
group.
Based upon Appellants’ arguments, we select representative claim 1
to decide this appeal for the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) for the group
consisting of claims 1-3, 5, 7-10, 12, 14-16, 18, and 20. (See App. Br. 6-16).
We accept Appellants’ grouping of the claims. We have only
considered those arguments that Appellants actually raised in the Briefs.
Arguments Appellants could have made but chose not to make in the Briefs
have not been considered and are deemed to be waived. See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(1)(vii)(2009).

ISSUE 1
Nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting:
Claims 1-3, 5, 7-10, 12, 14-16, 18, and 20
Appellants acknowledge the double patenting rejection although
misstating the rejection as being provisional (App. Br. 3). However,
Appellants do not present any arguments or evidence to rebut the
Examiner’s rejection. Accordingly, we summarily sustain the obviousness-
type double patenting rejections of claims 1-3, 5, 7-10, 12, 14-16, 18, and
20.

Appeal 2010-002008
Application 10/404,817

5
ISSUE 2
35 U.S.C. § 103(a): claims 1-3, 5, 7-10, 12, 14-16, 18, and 20
Appellants assert their invention is not obvious over Kannan and
Schneider because:
Kannan teaches only a single data environment where telephone
number statuses are represented, not a “plurality of data
environments” (App. Br. 8);
the rules in Kannan represent unique individual states for
telephone numbers, not a “unique combination of states” (App. Br. 9);
Kannan teaches steps that reflect steps in the processing of
porting a telephone number and not a “specific rule that reflects a
discrepancy among the plurality of data environments” (App. Br. 11-
12);
the ported telephone number in Kannan is actually identified
before the rule reflecting a discrepancy may be identified (App. Br.
13); and
in Schneider, the telephone number cannot also be identified
“before the telephone number has been requested” as it has already
been requested (App. Br. 15); and
Schneider does not restrict the availability of the particular
phone number for assignment but instead, reassigns the number (id.)

Issue 1: Has the Examiner erred in finding the combination of
Kannan and Schneider would have taught or suggested the invention recited
in claim 1?
Appeal 2010-002008
Application 10/404,817

6
ANALYSIS
We agree with the Examiner’s findings and conclusions and adopt
them as our own. We emphasize Appellants have defined “data
environment” as “a system of one or more computing devices and/or data
storage devices” (Spec. 4, ¶ [0014]). Appellants have not proffered any
persuasive evidence or argument to show the Examiner’s interpretation of
other claim terms is in error. In light of these interpretations, we agree with
the Examiner that in Kannan, the NRM (number resource management) and
NPAC (number portability administration center) are data environments
(Ans. 22). We also agree with the Examiner that Kannan teaches or suggests
rules (open, reserve, etc.) that represent a unique combination of states
(open, reserve, assign, etc.) among the data environments (Ans. 24). In
addition, as set forth by the Examiner, we agree that Kannan teaches or
suggests identifying a specific rule that reflects a discrepancy (Ans. 27-29),
and once identified, identifying a related telephone number (Ans. 30-31).
Moreover, we agree with the Examiner’s findings that Schneider
teaches or suggests if the number is on back-order, then once detected, a
reserve, reassignment, or provisioning of the number is done (Ans. 32-33).
Schneider also teaches or suggests restricting the availability of a particular
phone number for assignment as a back-order (Ans. 34).
Accordingly, the Examiner did not err in finding the combination of
Kannan and Schneider would have taught or suggested the invention as
recited in independent claim 1 and commensurately recited claims 9 and 15.
Dependent claims 2, 3, 5, 7, 8, 10, 12, 14, 16, 18, and 20 were not separately
argued and therefore, fall with their respective independent claims. It
Appeal 2010-002008
Application 10/404,817

7
follows the Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 1-3, 5, 7-10, 12, 14-16,
18, and 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) for obviousness over Kannan and
Schneider.

DECISION
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-3, 5, 7-10, 12, 14-16, 18, and 20
for obviousness-type double patenting is affirmed.
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-3, 5, 7-10, 12, 14-16, 18, and 20
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being obvious over Kannan and Schneider 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) (2010).

AFFIRMED

tj