Appeal No. 2005-1697
Application No. 10/160,357
element of the claimed invention, either expressly or inherently,
such that a person of ordinary skill in the art could practice
the invention without undue experimentation. In re Paulsen,
30 F.3d 1475, 1478-79, 31 USPQ2d 1671, 1673 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
At the outset, we note that, in accordance with appellant’s
grouping of the claims at page 4 of the principal brief, all
claims will stand or fall together. Accordingly, we will focus
on independent claim 1.
It is the examiner’s position that Cooper anticipates the
instant claimed subject matter by reading the claimed
“monitoring” step on call detail records of Cooper, wherein the
call setup period is the claimed “period of time.” The examiner
considers steps 405-408 of Cooper’s Figure 4 to read on the
claimed “determining” step, wherein the second time period is the
call setup period of a subsequent call. The claimed first and
second types of action is said to correspond to steps 409 and
410 in Figure 4 of Cooper.
We disagree with the examiner.
Cooper is directed to the prevention of fraud in the use of
a cell phone, particularly the fraud committed by “cloning” of a
cell phone number. By measuring the amount of time between calls
from a particular cell phone number and also determining the
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007