Appeal No. 97-4150
Application No. 08/186,820
invention, for example, will prevent a call dialed with
the following sequence: 1 800 950 1XXX 01. The digits
01 of course mean that the call is an international
one. Bimonte will allow this call to go through
because it does not prevent a call based on its
determination that the call is international.
Appellant’s claimed invention will also prevent the
call dialed with the following sequences: 950-1XXX-01
and 10XXX-01. By contrast, Bimonte will allow
950-1XXX-01 calls if the carrier accepts 950-XXXX calls
(see Bimonte, col. 24 line 17). Bimonte will also
allow 10XXX-01 calls if the carrier accepts 10XXX calls
and the dialing is not originating from a terminal from
which any dialing or 10XXX dialing is prohibited. . . .
Appellant summarizes his arguments concerning Bimonte by stating
(Brief, page 13) that “[a]lthough Bimonte discloses the
determination as to whether a call is an international call, no
prevention of the call is disclosed in Bimonte on the basis of
that determination, i.e. the call being an international call.”
With respect to the FCC Regulations, appellant argues (Brief,
page 15) that:
FCC Rules 47 C.F.R. 64.704 and 64.706 state that
(certain types of) access to interstate carriers cannot
be blocked. By contrast, Appellant’s claimed invention
relates to the blocking of certain calls when
international dialing digits are detected in a certain
location in the dialing sequence. Specifically,
Appellant evaluates a third plurality of dialing digits
in the dialing sequence. Appellant’s evaluation of the
third plurality of dialing digits is completely
unrelated to Title 47 of the FCC Regulations.
Again, the FCC Regulations state that blocking
certain calls is prohibited. Compare this to
Appellant’s claimed invention which legally blocks
certain calls without violating the FCC Regulations.
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007