Ex Parte Efrati

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Apr 27, 2017

14027968 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 27, 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.
14/027,968 09/16/2013 TZAHIEFRATI 5524-220 7426
96355 7590 05/01/2017
NIXON & VANDERHYE, P.C. / Vonage
901 NORTH GLEBE ROAD, 11TH FLOOR
ARLINGTON, VA 22203
EXAMINER
BLANTON, JOHN D
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2466
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/01/2017 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):
PTOMAIL@nixonvan.com
pair_nixon @ firsttofile. com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte TZAHI EFRATI
Appeal 2017-000857
Application 14/027,968
Technology Center 2400
Before THU A. DANG, ERIC S. FRAHM, and JOHN P. PINKERTON,
Administrative Patent Judges.
FRAHM, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal 2017-000857
Application 14/027,968
STATEMENT OF CASE
Introduction
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of
claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 12—16, 18, 19, 26, and 27. Claims 3, 6—8, 17, and 20—22
have been canceled. Claims 9—11 and 23—25 have been indicated as
allowable (Final Act. 4). We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We
affirm.
Exemplary Claim
Exemplary independent claim 1 under appeal reads as follows:
1. A method of routing an incoming telephony
communication directed to a virtual telephone number that is
assigned to first and second users of a telephony
system, comprising:
receiving an incoming telephony communication directed
to a virtual telephone number that is assigned to first and
second users of a telephony system;
obtaining caller ID information for the received incoming
telephony communication;
obtaining telephony related information for the first and
second users from address books or contact lists of the first and
second users;
determining whether an element of the obtained caller ID
information matches an element of the obtained telephony
information for the first and second users; and
routing the incoming telephony communication based on
the result of the determining step.
The Examiner’s Rejections
(1) The Examiner rejected claims 1, 2, 4, 12, 14—16, 18, and 26 as
being unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Borislow (US 8,306,201
Bl; issued Nov. 6, 2012) and Bangor (US 2007/0047532 Al; published Mar.
1, 2007). Final Act. 6—9; Ans. 4—7.
2
Appeal 2017-000857
Application 14/027,968
(2) The Examiner rejected dependent claims 5 and 19 as being
unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Borislow, Bangor, and
Mousseau (US 2007/0242809 Al; published Oct. 18, 2007). Final Act. 9;
Ans. 7—8.
(3) The Examiner rejected claims 13 and 27 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
Borislow, Bangor, and Enzmann (US 2004/0264663 Al; published Dec. 30,
2004) (Final Act. 10); however, this rejection has been withdrawn in the
Answer (see Ans. 2—3, 12; see also Reply Br. 1). Accordingly, we do not
consider the merits of, or Appellant’s arguments (see App. Br. 17—18)
regarding, this rejection.
Appellant’s Contentions1
Appellant contends (App. Br. 10-17; Reply Br. 2—7) that the
Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1, 2, 4, 12, 14—16, 18, and 26 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over the base combination of Borislow and Bangor for
numerous reasons, including:
1 Appellant primarily argues the merits of the combination with respect to
claim 1 (App. Br. 10-15; Reply Br. 2—5), and relies on the arguments
presented as to claim 1 for patentability of (i) claims 2, 3, 14, 15, 16, and 18
(App. Br. 15); (ii) claims 12 and 26 (App. Br. 15—16; Reply Br. 5—6); and
(iii) claims 5 and 19 (App. Br. 16—17; Reply Br. 6—7). Claims 1, 14, and 15
contain similar subject matter as claim 1, namely a system and method of
routing incoming telephony communication directed to a virtual telephone
number that is assigned to first and second users of a telephony system.
Appellant’s arguments as to independent claims 14 and 15 are the same as
for claim 1. In view of the foregoing, we select claim 1 as representative of
the group of claims 1, 2, 4, 12, 14—16, 18, and 26 rejected for obviousness
over Borislow and Bangor. Because Appellant presents similar arguments
for claims 5 and 19 (App. Br. 16—17; Reply Br. 6—7) as for claim 1, the
outcome of the rejection of claims 5 and 19 will stand/fall with the outcome
for claim 1.
3
Appeal 2017-000857
Application 14/027,968
(i) the way Borislow’s system routes incoming telephone calls
is significantly different than what is recited in claim 1 (App. Br. 10);
(ii) there is no motivation for making the combination of
Borislow and Bangor, and hindsight has been employed (App. Br. 13—
14; Reply Br. 2—5);
(iii) Bangor fails to teach using information in a user address
book and contact lists to determine which of two users should receive
an incoming call, as recited in claim 1 (App Br. 13); and
(iv) Borislow’s column 7, lines 39-51 do not teach or suggest
storing an association between (a) a calling party and a first user, or
(b) a calling party and a second user, as recited in claims 12 and 26
(App. Br. 15—16).
Principal Issue on Appeal
Based on Appellant’s arguments in the Appeal Brief (App. Br. 9—19)
and the Reply Brief (Reply Br. 1—7), the following principal issue is
presented on appeal:
Did the Examiner err in rejecting claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 12, 14—16, 18, 19,
and 26 as being obvious over the base combination of Borislow and Bangor
because:
(i) Borislow and Bangor combined fail to teach or suggest the method
of routing incoming telephony communication directed to a virtual telephone
number that is assigned to first and second users of a telephony system, as
recited in claim 1, and as similarly recited in remaining independent claims
14 and 15; and/or
4
Appeal 2017-000857
Application 14/027,968
(ii) Borislow and Bangor are not properly combinable due to (a) the
Examiner’s use of impermissible hindsight and (b) the lack of any
motivation in making the combination?
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellant’s
arguments in the Appeal Brief (App. Br. 9—19) and the Reply Brief (Reply
Br. 1—7) that the Examiner has erred. We disagree with Appellants’
arguments. With regard to claim 1, we adopt as our own (1) the findings and
reasons set forth by the Examiner in the action from which this appeal is
taken (Final Act. 6—7; Ans. 4—6), and (2) the reasons set forth by the
Examiner in the Examiner’s Answer in response to Appellant’s Appeal Brief
(Ans. 8—11). With regard to dependent claims 12 and 26 separately argued,
we agree with the Examiner’s findings that Borislow discloses a call log
database for logging calls between callers and callees that resolves calls to
virtual numbers in the manner recited (Ans. 11 citing col. 7,11. 39—51; col. 9,
11. 3—17; col. 10,11. 25—65; Fig. 5).2 In sum, we concur with the conclusions
reached by the Examiner as to both obviousness rejections.
With regard to claim 1, the Examiner relies on Borislow (col. 10,11.
25—65) for features relating to virtual telephone numbers recited in claim 1,
2 Appellant does not dispute the findings of the Examiner with regard to
columns 9 and 10 and Figure 5 of Borislow. Therefore, Appellant has not
shown the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 12 and 26, and the outcome of
the rejection of claims 12 and 26 will be based on the outcome with regard
to the rejection of independent claims 1 and 15 from which claims 12 and 26
respectively depend. Therefore, the outcome of the rejection of claims 12
and 26 will be decided by the outcome with regard to the rejection of claim
1.
5
Appeal 2017-000857
Application 14/027,968
and Bangor (| 8) for obtaining information from address books and/or
contact lists concerning first and second users (Final Act. 6—7; Ans. 4—6).
We agree with the findings made by the Examiner with regard to the
individual references, and we also agree with the Examiner (Ans. 5—6) that it
would have been obvious to user Bangor’s address book matching teaching
in the telephony and call directing system of Borislow to improve call
filtering (Final Act. 7; Ans. 5—6, 9). Specifically, we agree with the
Examiner’s determination that “[t]he addition of address books would have
made the determining of a called party based on a reusable call number
possible when the historical database had no records of previous call traffic,
e.g. new subscribers .. . [and therefore] the address books would perform as
an initial way of determining the correct called party even if the historical
database had no entries on the new subscriber” (Ans. 9). Therefore,
Appellant’s arguments (App. Br. 13—14; Reply Br. 2—5) that there is no
motivation to combine Borislow and Bangor other than impermissible
hindsight are not persuasive.
With regard to Appellant’s argument as to claims 12 and 26 (App. Br.
15—16), that Borislow’s column 7, lines 39-51 fails to teach or suggest
storing an association between (a) a calling party and a first user, or (b) a
calling party and a second user, as recited in claims 12 and 26, this argument
is unpersuasive inasmuch as the Examiner (Ans. 11) relies on additional
undisputed portions of Borislow (col. 9,11. 3—17; col. 10,11. 25—65; Fig. 5)
as teaching these features.
In view of the foregoing, we sustain the rejection of (i) representative
claim 1, (ii) remaining independent claims 14 and 15 reciting similar
limitations to a system for routing an incoming telephony communication to
6
Appeal 2017-000857
Application 14/027,968
a virtual telephone number, and (iii) respective dependent claims 2, 4, 12,
16, 18, and 26 as being obvious over the combination of Borislow and
Bangor. We also sustain the rejection of dependent claims 5 and 19 for the
same reasons provided as to claims 1 and 15 from which these claims
respectively depend, and because Appellant’s arguments (App. Br. 16—17;
Reply Br. 6—7) concerning the use of impermissible hindsight and lack of
motivation in the combination of Borislow and Bangor fail to address the
inclusion of Mousseau in the rejection.
CONCLUSIONS
(1) The Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 1, 2, 4, 12, 14—16, 18,
and 26 as being unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Borislow and
Bangor.
(2) Appellant has not shown that the Examiner erred in rejecting
claims 5 and 19 as being unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over
Borislow, Bangor, and Mousseau.
DECISION
The Examiner’s rejections of claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 12, 14—16, 18, 19, and
26 are 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
7