Appeal No. 2007-0151
Application No. 10/081,132
necessarily requires those functions mentioned in the Specification which
make it different from the billing and advertising services in Olshansky.
As pointed out by the Examiner, Olshansky discloses a system for
callers to obtain telephone services at a subsidized rate (col. 2, ll. 4-13) after
the caller is authenticated and receives an advertisement (col. 2, ll. 16-21).
Olshansky further teaches that an accounting unit tracks the duration and
bandwidth of the call (col. 3, ll. 10-20) to be displayed on the Graphical User
Interface depicted in Figure 3. The functional buttons depicted in Figure 3
show that the user may use memory pad 322 or numerical keypad 324 for
placing a call and participating in voice communication (col. 5, ll. 5-10).
Another button available to the user is disclosed as billing information
button 326 which may include the usage, duration, and the present cost of
the call to the user (col. 5, ll. 11-18). Therefore, Olshansky does disclose the
claimed network-related function, as the presented billing information, in
addition to voice communication. We note that contrary to Appellants’
assertion that billing and advertisement are not separate services (Reply Br.
4), the advertisement presented to the caller in Olshansky merely determines
the billing rate and has nothing to do with the voice communication or the
billing information displayed to the user.
Appellants further argue that Trandal and Patel do not disclose
anything related to the missing features in Olshansky and conclude that the
deficiencies of the primary reference remains uncured (Br. 8-9). As
Appellants provide no specific arguments with respect to the rejection of
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013