Appeal No. 2005-1697
Application No. 10/160,357
geographical location from which those calls were made, it is
determined if it is feasible for the authorized caller to have
been in both of those places, considering the time period between
calls. For example, if a call is placed in New York from a
particular cell number and a call is placed from that very same
cell number in Los Angeles one hour later, fraud is highly
suspect.
The instant invention is also directed to reducing fraud,
but the instant system monitors a particular unit during two
periods of time. The first period is one of normal use, a
reference period, on which statistics are collected. The second
period is the period that is being examined for fraud. If there
is more than a predetermined deviation between the use of the
unit in these two periods of time, the second use is deemed
suspect.
We agree with the examiner that Cooper’s authorized use of
the cell phone which is monitored may be considered “monitoring
the use of said particular unit to collect statistics concerning
the use of said particular unit over a time period having a
specific length.” We also agree that Cooper may be said to
determine if there is more than a predetermined deviation between
the use of the unit during a second period of time, in that the
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007