Appeal 2007-0844
Application 10/790,473
Teleflex Inc., 127 S. Ct. 1727, 1741, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (2007) (quoting
In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988, 78 USPQ2d 1329, 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2006)).
Further, as pointed out by our reviewing court, we must first determine
the scope of the claim. “[T]he name of the game is the claim.” In re Hiniker
Co., 150 F.3d 1362, 1369, 47 USPQ2d 1523, 1529 (Fed. Cir. 1998).
Therefore, we look to the limitations as recited and disputed in independent
claim 1. From our review of the Examiner’s rejection, we find that the
Examiner has set forth a proper initial showing, with respect to independent
claim 1, to shift the burden to Appellant. We note that the Examiner
maintains that Gallant teaches all the limitations but for the serial
communication.
Appellant argues the independent claim 1 differs from Gallant in that
independent claim 1 recites that a custom calling feature corresponding to a
call from a party A to party B is disabled as a result of the call having
originated from party A whereas in Gallant the custom calling feature
corresponding to a call from party A to party B is disabled based upon the
profile information associated with party B (Br. 9 and Reply Br. 2-9).
The Examiner disputes Appellant’s contention and identifies paragraph
[0058] as verifying the privileges of the first user to reach the second user
and performing any call handling features provisioned for the first and
second users (Answer 4). Here, we agree with the Examiner that Gallant is
not limited to merely using the profile information of the second user/party
B. Additionally, we find that paragraph [0008] teaches that an administrator
may perform call blocking and place outgoing call restrictions on individual
users. Additionally, the administrator may make restrictions on out-going
calls to certain international phone number ranges for different individual
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013