11877639 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 8, 2013)

Ex Parte Dresden

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardJul 8, 2013

11877639 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 8, 2013)

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. 11/877,639 10/23/2007 Scott Dresden X-9285 8272 24131 7590 07/08/2013 LERNER GREENBERG STEMER LLP P O BOX 2480 HOLLYWOOD, FL 33022-2480 EXAMINER OSMAN BILAL AHMED, AFAF ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3622 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 07/08/2013 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 1 ___________ 2 3 BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD 4 ___________ 5 6 Ex parte SCOTT DRESDEN 7 ___________ 8 9 Appeal 2011-005761 10 Application 11/877,639 11 Technology Center 3600 12 ___________ 13 14 15 Before MURRIEL E. CRAWFORD, ANTON W. FETTING, and 16 MICHAEL W. KIM, Administrative Patent Judges. 17 18 FETTING, Administrative Patent Judge. 19 20 21 DECISION ON APPEAL22 Appeal 2011-005761 Application 11/877,639 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE1 1 Scott Dresden (Appellant) seeks review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 of a 2 final rejection of claims 1-11, the only claims pending in the application on 3 appeal. We have jurisdiction over the appeal pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). 4 The Appellant invented a way of setting and executing goals for profit 5 and loss both at a product and a global level and with the speed to make 6 time-critical value decisions about customer procurement purchases and 7 product pricing (Spec. 5, para. 0013). 8 An understanding of the invention can be derived from a reading of 9 exemplary claim 1, which is reproduced below [bracketed matter and some 10 paragraphing added]. 11 1. A method for routing a customer call to a particular vendor 12 comprising: 13 [1] providing a phone number 14 to a customer 15 via an advertisement, 16 wherein said phone number is linked 17 with a plurality of consumer category codes, 18 and 19 wherein said customer makes said customer call 20 by entering the phone number into a telephone 21 communicating with a telecommunications 22 network 23 and 24 by entering one of said plurality of consumer 25 category codes into said telephone; 26 [2] determining which of said plurality of consumer category 27 codes is entered by said customer; 28 [3] associating said customer call with a consumer category 29 1 Our decision will make reference to the Appellant’s Appeal Brief (“App. Br.,” filed Sep. 24, 2010) and Reply Brief (“Reply Br.,” filed Feb. 8, 2011), and the Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.,” mailed Dec. 8, 2010). Appeal 2011-005761 Application 11/877,639 3 based on which of said plurality of consumer category 1 codes is entered; 2 [4] creating a consumer category database 3 including a listing of a plurality of vendors 4 related with said consumer category; 5 [5] using a control routing device 6 to route the telephone call to a particular vendor 7 selected from the plurality of vendors 8 based on a bidding factor 9 dependent on a bid made to a provider 10 of the phone number; 11 and 12 [6] displaying at least some detail 13 on how said phone number is provided to said customer. 14 15 The Examiner relies upon the following prior art: 16 Thornton US 6,097,792 Aug. 1, 2000 Davis US 6,269,361 B1 Jul. 31, 2001 Schubert US 2002/0116287 A1 Aug. 22, 2002 Val US 6,898,571 B1 May 24, 2005 Altberg US 7,120,235 B2 Oct. 10, 2006 Claims 1, 5, 10, and 11 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as 17 unpatentable over Thornton and Altberg.2 18 Claims 2-4 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable 19 over Thornton, Altberg, and Schubert. 20 Claim 6 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over 21 Thornton, Altberg, and Davis. 22 Claims 7-9 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable 23 over Thornton, Altberg, and Val. 24 2 The Examiner withdrew rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 101 and 112, second paragraph. Ans. 2. Appeal 2011-005761 Application 11/877,639 4 ISSUES 1 The issues of obviousness turn primarily on whether limitation [5], 2 which recites “using a control routing device to route the telephone call to a 3 particular vendor selected from the plurality of vendors based on a bidding 4 factor dependent on a bid made to a provider of the phone number,” requires 5 the routing device to route a call to a selected vendor, or to interpret a bid. 6 7 FACTS PERTINENT TO THE ISSUES 8 The following enumerated Findings of Fact (FF) are believed to be 9 supported by a preponderance of the evidence. 10 Facts Related to the Prior Art 11 Thornton 12 01. Thornton is directed to generating leads for the sales of products 13 or services and/or for conducting real time polling from incoming 14 telephone calls. More particularly, this invention relates to an 15 interactive method and apparatus for generating sales leads or 16 conducting real time polling that can store product or service 17 information under a plurality of individual identification numbers 18 in a memory accessible to potential customers by phone, instantly 19 capture and record the phone number dialed and the phone 20 numbers associated with each incoming call, conduct a search 21 using the caller's phone number to obtain their name and address, 22 track all transactions entered or forced during each call and 23 monitor the time and duration of the call and other call events. 24 Thornton 2:16-30. 25 26 Appeal 2011-005761 Application 11/877,639 5 Altberg 1 02. Altberg is directed to performance-based advertising. Altberg 1:7-2 8. 3 03. The payment specification module includes bid for placement 4 logic that presents an option to choose to be billed on a bid-for-5 placement basis. The logic supports proxy bids, and 6 maximum/minimum bids. Altberg 5:35-45. 7 04. The advertiser to specify the maximum bid amount that the 8 advertiser is willing to pay to provision the advertisement using 9 the selected channel and category. Altberg 6:15-18. 10 11 ANALYSIS 12 We are not persuaded by the Appellant’s argument that “[t]here is no 13 teaching related to routing a can based on a bidding factor.” App. Br. 9. 14 The limitation at issue recites “using a control routing device to route the 15 telephone call to a particular vendor selected from the plurality of vendors 16 based on a bidding factor dependent on a bid made to a provider of the 17 phone number.” This requires the routing device to route a call to a selected 18 vendor, as any conventional routing device would do. The bid is in some 19 manner a basis for the vendor selection, not the routing. The claim does not 20 narrow the manner or degree of such a basis or even what the so called 21 bidding factor actually is, other than being dependent in some unspecified 22 manner on a bid, also undefined in the claim. Altberg explicitly assigns 23 vendor selection slots based on bids. 24 Appeal 2011-005761 Application 11/877,639 6 Alternatively, the routing, being based on the selection which is in 1 turn based on the bid, is thus indirectly based on the bid. Again, the claim 2 does not specify the manner of the basis. 3 The remaining claims are argued on the basis of the patentability of 4 claim 1. 5 6 CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 7 The rejection of claims 1, 5, 10 and 11 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as 8 unpatentable over Thornton and Altberg is proper. 9 The rejection of claims 2-4 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable 10 over Thornton, Altberg, and Schubert is proper. 11 The rejection of claim 6 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable 12 over Thornton, Altberg, and Davis is proper. 13 The rejection of claims 7-9 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable 14 over Thornton, Altberg, and Val is proper. 15 16 DECISION 17 The rejections of claims 1-11 is affirmed. 18 No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with 19 this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R. 20 § 1.136(a)(1)(iv) (2011). 21 22 AFFIRMED 23 24 25 hh 26