Appeal 2007-1751
Application 09/769,511
1 Green with implementation details such as party identifiers and an administrative
2 interface does no more than so identify the parties and allow administration.
3 Similarly, it is the objective reach of the claim that controls, not the patentee’s
4 particular motivation, and one of the ways to show obviousness is noting a known
5 problem for which there was an obvious solution encompassed by the claim at
6 issue. See KSR. The objective reach of this claim extends no further than Greene,
7 which identified the known problem regarding the need to charge callers, with
8 Lynch-Aird and Chang providing obvious implementation detail solutions.
9 Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to
10 have combined Lynch-Aird’s and Chang’s implementation details to Greene’s
11 caller charging scheme to reach the claimed subject matter.
12 Thus, we find that the applied references are properly combined, and we find
13 the Appellant’s arguments unpersuasive.
14
15 Dependent Claim 9
16 The Appellant separately argues the patentability of claim 9. Claim 9 adds the
17 limitation that the user-specified cost information is stored in a database associated
18 with the user terminal.
19 Appellant's argument is that, the examiner fails to point with any level of
20 specificity where the proposed reference combination teaches or suggests this
21 limitation (Br. 9:Second full ¶).
13
Page: Previous 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013