Appeal 2007-0844
Application 10/790,473
users. We find this teaching to show that a restriction may be based solely
upon the originating party and to be suggestive of the ability of the system to
perform similar restrictions on other custom calling features based upon the
individual user which originates the call. We additionally find that
paragraphs [0051] and [0066] buttress our finding that Gallant does make
determinations based upon the location of the originator of the call and
furthermore that it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the
time of the invention to have used the location of the originator of the call to
disable certain custom calling features based upon the location or identity of
the user placing the call.
From our review of the teachings of Gallant, we find that Gallant teaches
both the use of party A and/or party B as a determining factor to disable calls
and calling features. With that as a baseline, we find that it would have been
obvious to one skilled in the art at the time of the invention to have used the
origin of the call as a basis for disabling any or all custom calling features by
the administrator, proxy server, or location server in the various network
structures as taught by Gallant. Therefore we cannot agree with Appellant
that Gallant does not teach or fairly suggest the limitation of claim 1 that
“the switching office disables at least one custom calling feature
corresponding to the call signal upon determining the call signal as
originating from the at least one facility resident telephone.” Therefore,
Appellant's argument is not persuasive, and we will sustain the rejection of
independent claim 1 and dependent claims 2-11 which Appellant has not
provided separate argument for patentability.
With respect to independent claim 12, Appellant relies upon the
arguments advanced with respect to independent claim 1 which we did not
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013