Ex Parte Nason et al - Page 7

                Appeal 2007-1127                                                                             
                Application 09/800,112                                                                       

                denotes whether the encapsulated message is a first type of message or a                     
                second type of message.  Thus the issue before us is further reduced to                      
                whether Appellants functionally or structurally distinguish over the prior art               
                by specifying that the prior art first type of message is “an IP Message” and                
                the prior art second type of message is “an encapsulated non-IP message.”                    
                      We conclude that they do not.  We find that Matsumoto and Thornton                     
                teach all the claimed functionality and structure of claim 22.  We find that                 
                Appellants’ IP message and encapsulated non-IP message are nonfunctional                     
                descriptive material.  Therefore, we must conclude that the difference                       
                between the prior art and the claimed invention is simply a rearrangement of                 
                nonfunctional descriptive material.                                                          
                      Appellants’ argue that in their claim, “call control functionality from                
                legacy-PBX systems may be extended to an Ethernet or LAN-implemented                         
                PBX.”  We note that no such limitation is present in the claims.  Rather,                    
                Appellants’ claims are limited to message generating, transmitting, and the                  
                format of the message.  We find no claim limitations directed to “call control               
                functionality” as argued.                                                                    

                                             OTHER ISSUES                                                    
                      The Board brings to Appellants’ and the Examiner’s attention the                       
                Baroudi patent cited above.  Should there be further prosecution of the                      
                present or a continuing application, we recommend a review of Baroudi’s                      
                Figures 2, 5, and 11.                                                                        




                                                     7                                                       

Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  Next

Last modified: September 9, 2013