Appeal No. 2007-0151
Application No. 10/081,132
OPINION
With respect to the rejection of claims 1-8, the focus of Appellants’
arguments is that Olshansky relates to a system that enables a single function
in response to authentication of a person and involves no other network-
related functions (Br. 6). Appellants further argue that the generation of a
bill or alarm and pushing advertisements to subscribers of Olshansky do not
constitute at least one other network-related function, as recited in claim 1
(Id.). Appellants assert that the instant Specification describes information
delivery and trading of financial interests as the claimed network-related
functions (Specification 13) whereas voice mail and conference calls are
described as voice communication services (Specification 16-18), as recited
in claim 1 (Br. 8).
The Examiner responds by stating that the claims merely recite
participating in a “network-related function” and voice communication
without requiring that the function be related to the telephone service
(Answer 12). Relying on Appellants identifying information delivery as a
network-related function (Br. 8), the Examiner concludes that providing
billing information in Olshansky is a kind of information delivery and reads
on the claimed “network-related function” (Answer 12).
As a general proposition, in rejecting claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103,
the examiner bears the initial burden of presenting a prima facie case of
obviousness. See In re Rijckaert, 9 F.3d 1531, 1532, 28 USPQ2d 1955,
1956 (Fed. Cir. 1993) and In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 1074, 5 USPQ2d 1596,
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013