Ex parte Pershan et al.

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Mar 24, 1998

07888098 (B.P.A.I. Mar. 24, 1998)

Application for patent filed May 26, 1992. 1
-1-
THIS OPINION WAS NOT WRITTEN FOR PUBLICATION
The opinion in support of the decision being entered today
(1) was not written for publication in a law journal and
(2) is not binding precedent of the Board.
Paper No. 25
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
_____________
Ex parte BARRY PERSHAN, VON K. McCONNELL
and GEORGE HASENAUER
Appeal No. 95-2050
Application 07/888,0981
____________
ON BRIEF
____________
Before BARRETT, FLEMING and CARMICHAEL, Administrative Patent
Judges.
CARMICHAEL, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is an appeal from the final rejection of Claims
1-29, which constitute all the claims remaining in the
application.
Appeal No. 95-2050
Application 07/888,098
-2-
Claim 1 reads as follows:
1. In a communication network including a plurality
of interconnected central office switching systems each at a
different location, each of said central office switching
systems connected to a plurality of local communication lines,
a voice network portion comprising voice communication paths
for interconnecting any of the central office switching
systems, a common channel signaling network portion comprising
signaling paths interconnecting said central office switching
systems through at least one signal transfer point and at
least one integrated services control point including a data
base,
a method for simultaneously redirecting a plurality
of call paths for telephone numbers corresponding to local
communication lines at a first set of locations in pre-set
groups to local communication lines at one or more second
locations, comprising the steps of:
storing call redirection information concurrently
for all of said telephone numbers in said data base;
setting a trigger in the network for each of said
telephone numbers; and
redirecting a voice communication path between an
originating call location and one of said second locations in
accordance with redirection information accessed from said
data base in response to a trigger corresponding to one of
said telephone numbers.
The Examiner’s Answer cites the following prior art:
Bicknell et al. (Bicknell) 4,754,479 June 28, 1988
Morganstein 5,029,196 July 2, 1991
Inbound/Outbound Magazine, November 1989, page 54, “The Case
for Voice Recovery Services” by Mike Bush.
OPINION
Appeal No. 95-2050
Application 07/888,098
-3-
Claims 1 and 15
Claims 1 and 15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as unpatentable over Bush.
The examiner finds that Bush discloses all of the
recited steps, albeit in a communication network different
than the communication network recited in the claim’s
preamble. According to the examiner, it would have been
obvious to use Bush’s method in the modern communication
network recited in the preamble.
Appellants argue that there are additional
differences, and that none of the differences are suggested by
Bush.
We agree with the examiner.
As to the argued additional differences, we agree
with the examiner that Bush suggests or implies a method for
“simultaneously redirecting a plurality of call paths” because
it was common knowledge that a given 800 number is likely to
have more than one incoming call path. Moreover, this is
implied by Bush’s reference to Private Branch Exchanges at the
alternate location. Column 2, lines 4-8. Each 800 number in
Bush may constitute the recited “pre-set group.” All of
Appeal No. 95-2050
Application 07/888,098
-4-
Bush’s redirection information resides in storage at the same
time and is thus “concurrently” stored. The recited step of
“setting a trigger” is taught by Bush’s description of
alternate routings being activated. Claim 15's additional
recitation, that the
common data base is located at a control node remote from the
first and second locations, is taught by Bush’s drawing which
shows that the database is remote from the primary 800
location and the alternate 800 location.
The sole difference, applying Bush’s method to the
recited communication network, was suggested by Bush. Bush
teaches that his method is advantageously applied to “nearly
all network backup strategies” including those affecting
central office switching stations. Column 1, lines 14-17.
Moreover, we find that it was common knowledge to consider
applying methods that are established for older communications
networks to new ones.
Thus, the rejection of claims 1 and 15 will be
sustained.
Claims 2 and 16
Appeal No. 95-2050
Application 07/888,098
-5-
Claims 2 and 16 depend from claims 1 and 15
respectively and stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Bush. Bush’s long distance carrier may be
considered the recited “central office switching system” and
thus renders obvious the claimed subject matter as discussed
above. Moreover, Bush specifically suggests application to a
“central office switching station.” Column 1, lines 14-17.
Thus, the rejection of claims 2 and 16 will be
sustained.
Claims 3 and 17
Claims 3 and 17 depend from claims 1 and 15
respectively and stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Bush. These claims additionally recite
“concurrently transmitting redirection information for said
plurality of telephone numbers for storage in said data base.”
We note that “said plurality” lacks antecedent basis and so
provides little if any limitation additional to the
independent claims. Moreover, we agree with the examiner that
impliedly an artisan implementing Bush would transmit
information concurrently.
Appeal No. 95-2050
Application 07/888,098
-6-
Thus, the rejection of claims 3 and 17 will be
sustained.
Claims 4 and 18
Claims 4 and 18 depend from claims 3 and 17
respectively and stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Bush. These claims additionally recite that
the “redirection information indicates a plurality of
alternative destinations for at least one of said telephone
numbers.” We agree with the examiner that this is taught by
Bush. Column 2, lines 9-16.
Thus, the rejection of claims 4 and 18 will be
sustained.
Claims 5, 6, 19, and 20
Claims 5, 6, 19, and 20 additionally recite that the
redirection information designates either an apportionment
percentage or a time schedule for alternative destinations.
The examiner states that these are matters of design choice.
Appellants argue that “design choice” begs the question of
obviousness and is an improper basis for rejecting these
claims.
Appeal No. 95-2050
Application 07/888,098
-7-
We agree with appellants.
The mere fact that the prior art may be modified in
the manner suggested by the examiner does not make the
modification obvious unless the prior art suggested the
desirability of the modification. In re Fritch, 972 F.2d
1260, 1266 n.14, 23 USPQ2d 1780, 1783-84 n.14 (Fed. Cir.
1992); In re Chu, 66 F.3d 292, 298-99, 36 USPQ2d 1089, 1094-95
(Fed. Cir. 1995).
Because the examiner has not established that the
prior art suggested the desirability of the modification, we
will not sustain the rejections of claims 5, 6, 19, and 20.
Claim 7
Claim 7 falls together with claim 4 because
appellants have presented no arguments for the separate
patentability of claim 7. 37 CFR § 1.192. Had appellants
made a separate argument, the examiner could have cited
Morganstein, column 2, lines 3-6, for suggesting the recited
feature.
Claims 8, 9, 21, and 22
Appeal No. 95-2050
Application 07/888,098
-8-
Claims 8, 9, 21, and 22 depend from claims 3, 8, 17,
and 21 respectively and additionally recite updating the data
base by selecting a different set of destinations for current
operation. We fail to see how these recitations distinguish
over Bush any more than the claims from which they depend.
For the reasons presented above, the rejection of Claims 8, 9,
21, and 22 is sustained.
Claims 10 and 23
Claims 10 and 23 depend from claims 3 and 17
respectively and additionally recite establishment of a
communication path to a processor in communication with either
an integrated services control point or a control node. We
find that Bush’s disclosure of a “command routing database”
implies such a processor.
The rejection of claims 10 and 23 is sustained.
Claims 11, 12, 24, and 25
Claims 11, 12, 24, and 25 fall with the claims from
which they depend because appellants have presented no
argument for separate patentability. 37 CFR § 1.192.
Appeal No. 95-2050
Application 07/888,098
-9-
The rejection of claims 11, 12, 24, and 25 is
sustained.
Claims 13 and 26
Claims 13 and 26 depend from claims 1 and 15
respectively and specify that one of the telephone numbers is
a virtual number. We agree with the examiner that Bush’s 800
number is a virtual number and that even if it weren’t,
Bicknell suggests using a virtual number. Bicknell at Column
1, lines
13-52.
The rejection of claims 13 and 26 is sustained.
Claims 14 and 27
Claims 14 and 27 additionally recite providing a
voice message or voice messaging information to a caller. We
agree with the examiner that these features are suggested by
Morganstein.
The rejection of claims 14 and 27 is sustained.
Claims 28 and 29
Appeal No. 95-2050
Application 07/888,098
-10-
Claims 28 and 29 fall with the claims from which
they depend because appellants have presented no argument for
separate patentability. 37 CFR § 1.192. Had appellants made
separate arguments, the examiner could have pointed to
portions of Morganstein suggesting the claimed invention.
The rejection of claims 28 and 29 is sustained.
CONCLUSION
The rejection of claims 1-4, 7-18, and 21-29 is
sustained. The rejection of claims 5, 6, 19, and 20 is not
sustained.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in
connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 CFR
1.136(a).
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
LEE E. BARRETT )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
)
MICHAEL R. FLEMING ) BOARD OF PATENT
Administrative Patent Judge ) APPEALS AND
) INTERFERENCES
)
)
JAMES T. CARMICHAEL )
Administrative Patent Judge )
Appeal No. 95-2050
Application 07/888,098
-11-
Lowe, Price, Leblanc & Becker
99 Canal Center Plaza, Suite 300
Alexandria, Virginia 22314