Ex Parte Nath et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardFeb 23, 201612164865 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 23, 2016) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR 12/164,865 06/30/2008 55168 7590 02/23/2016 BROSEMER, KOLEFAS & ASSOCIATES, LLC 1 BETHANY ROAD BUILDING 4 - SUITE# 58 HAZLET, NJ 07730 BadriNath 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 ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO. MFT-08-001 1028 EXAMINER FANG,PAKEE ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2642 MAILDATE DELIVERY MODE 02/23/2016 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 PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte BADRI NATH and RAKESH KUSHWAHA Appeal2013-007717 Application 12/164,865 Technology Center 2600 Before MARC S. HOFF, STEPHEN C. SIU, and JEREMY J. CURCURI, Administrative Patent Judges. CURCURI, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's rejection of claims 1-19. App. Br. 1. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). Claims 1-6, 12-15, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Aaltonen et al. (US 2008/0305775 Al; published Dec. 11, 2008), Magdon-Ismail et al. (US 2009/0055270 Al; published Feb. 26, 2009), and Phillips et al. (US 2006/0270421 Al; published Nov. 30, 2006). Final Act. 2-8. Appeal2013-007717 Application 12/164,865 Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Aaltonen, Magdon-Ismail, Phillips, and Smith et al. (US 2004/0266397 Al; published Dec. 30, 2004). Final Act. 9--10. Claims 9, 10, 16, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Aaltonen, Magdon-Ismail, Phillips, and Yamazaki et al.(US 2004/0097244 Al; published May 20, 2004). Final Act. 10-13. Claims 8, 11, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Aaltonen, Magdon-Ismail, Phillips, and Porco (US 2008/0318559 Al; published Dec. 25, 2008). Final Act. 13-16. We reverse. STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants' invention relates to "capturing and reporting call-through events in connection with phone numbers embedded in advertising impressions sent to mobile wireless devices." Abstract. Claim 1 is illustrative and reproduced below: 1. A method for capturing and reporting call-through events on a mobile wireless device comprising the steps of: receiving at the mobile wireless device a first message sent from a server specifying call-through event information to be collected at the mobile wireless device for an advertising phone number, the call-through event information including at least one of a time, a location of the mobile wireless device, and an application status; receiving at the mobile wireless device an advertising impression with the advertising phone number; 2 Appeal2013-007717 Application 12/164,865 displaying the advertising impression with the advertising phone number; originating a call from the mobile wireless device to the advertising phone number, thereby causing a call-through event; collecting at the mobile wireless device the call-through event information for the call; and sending a second message from the mobile wireless device containing the call-through event information. ANALYSIS THE OBVIOUSNESS REJECTION OF CLAIMS 1---6, 12-15, AND 19 OVER AALTONEN, MAGDON-lSMAIL, AND PHILLIPS The Examiner finds Aaltonen, Magdon-Ismail, and Phillips teach all limitations of claim 1. Final Act. 3-5. The Examiner finds Aaltonen's promotional material teaches the recited "receiving at the mobile wireless device a first message sent from a server" of claim 1. Final Act. 3 (citing Aaltonen i-fi-138-39, 104). The Examiner finds Magdon-Ismail's ADT program collecting data teaches a message specifying event information to be collected. Final Act. 4 (citing Magdon-Ismail i-fi-f 19, 25-33, 36-38). Appellants present, among other arguments, the following principal arguments: 1. "Magdon-Ismail's ADT does not collect call-through event information, but rather browsing or click-through information. App. Br. 6. "The information collected by Magdon-Ismail's ADT all appears to relate to online activities, such as browsing (or navigation), search engine requests 3 Appeal2013-007717 Application 12/164,865 and download activity. As is well known, such activities are fundamentally different from call-related activities." App. Br. 7. 11. "While Aaltonen describes storing in the memory (215) of the management system (2 0) individuals' responses to promotional material, there is no teaching of collecting at the individuals' devices any information relating to call-through events associated with an advertising phone number." App. Br. 7. Even if one were to argue, for example, that the recited "call event information" reads on outgoing call information as commonly collected in call logs by mobile devices, there is no teaching or suggestion that the information that is collected by the mobile device is specified in a first message received by the device, and that the collected information is sent from the mobile device in a second message, as required by claim 1. App. Br. 7-8. While Aaltonen' s system uses queries to learn a device's capabilities (at the time of the response to a query) it cannot determine the location of the device or the status of applications running on the device in connection with a call-through event, which event can occur at any time, unrelated to any query. While Magdon-Ismail touches on some aspects of the aforementioned deficiencies of Aaltonen, it is important to remember that Magdon-Ismail deals with click-through events, not call-through events, and as such is not helpful in overcoming the above-discussed deficiencies of Aaltonen with respect to call- through events. App. Br. 9. In response, the Examiner explains Aaltonen teaches the advertiser receiving information regarding response rate to promotional material. Ans. 5 (citing Aaltonen i-f 68). 4 Appeal2013-007717 Application 12/164,865 We are persuaded by Appellants' arguments that the Examiner erred in finding that the cited prior art teaches the recited (emphasis added) receiving at the mobile wireless device a first message sent from a server specifj;ing call-through event information to be collected at the mobile wireless device for an advertising phone number, the call-through event information including at least one of a time, a location of the mobile wireless device, and an application status of claim 1. The Examiner's reliance on Aaltonen in the Final Action does not give any explanation with regard to specifying call-through event information. See Final Act. 3. In essence, the Examiner finds that Aaltonen's received promotional material simply teaches receiving a message. Id. Thus, we agree with Appellants' argument ii with respect to Aaltonen' s deficiencies - the Examiner has not demonstrated that Aaltonen's promotional material specifies call-through event information to be collected. The Examiner's Answer's explanation (see Ans. 5) that Aaltonen teaches the advertiser receiving information regarding response rate to promotional material (see Aaltonen i-f 68) does not cure Aaltonen's deficiency because the Examiner still has not demonstrated the information received by the advertiser is call-through event information collected by the mobile device, let alone that such information is specified in Aaltonen's promotional material. Further, we agree with Appellants' arguments i and ii with respect to Magdon-Ismail's failure to cure Aaltonen's deficiencies. To the extent Magdon-Ismail teaches a message specifying event information to be collected, the Examiner has not demonstrated that Magdon-Ismail has 5 Appeal2013-007717 Application 12/164,865 anything to do with specifying call-through event information to be collected, and has not explained how or why Aaltonen's promotional material would have been modified to specify call-through event information to be collected. We, therefore, do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 1, or of claims 2-6, which depend from claim 1. We also do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of independent claim 12, which similarly recites sending to the mobile wireless device a first message from a server specifying call-through event information to be collected at the mobile wireless device for an advertising phone number, the call-through event information including at least one of a time, a location of the mobile wireless device, and an application status or of claims 13-15 and 19, which depend from claim 12. THE OBVIOUSNESS RFJECTION OF CLAIM 7 OVER AALTONEN; MAGDON- ISMAIL, PHILLIPS, AND SMITH The Examiner finds Aaltonen, Magdon-Ismail, Phillips, and Smith teach all limitations of claim 7. Final Act. 9-10. Claim 7 depends from claim 1. We, therefore, do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 7. THE OBVIOUSNESS REJECTION OF CLAIMS 9, 10, 16, AND 17 OVERAALTONEN, MAGDON-lSMAIL, PHILLIPS, ANDY AMAZAKI The Examiner finds Aaltonen, Magdon-Ismail, Phillips, and Yamazaki teach all limitations of claims 9, 10, 16, and 17. Final Act. 10-13. Claims 9, 10, 16, and 17 variously depend from claims 1 and 12. 6 Appeal2013-007717 Application 12/164,865 We, therefore, do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of claims 9, 10, 16, and 17. THE OBVIOUSNESS REJECTION OF CLAIMS 8, 11, AND 18 OVER AALTONEN, MAGDON-lSMAIL, PHILLIPS, AND PORCO The Examiner finds Aaltonen, Magdon-Ismail, Phillips, and Porco teach all limitations of claims 8, 11, and 18. Final Act. 13-16. Claims 8, 11, and 18 variously depend from claims 1 and 12. We, therefore, do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of claims 8, 11, and 18. ORDER The Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-19 is reversed. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal maybe extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l). REVERSED 7 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation