Appeal 2007-1127
Application 09/800,112
denotes whether the encapsulated message is a first type of message or a
second type of message. Thus the issue before us is further reduced to
whether Appellants functionally or structurally distinguish over the prior art
by specifying that the prior art first type of message is “an IP Message” and
the prior art second type of message is “an encapsulated non-IP message.”
We conclude that they do not. We find that Matsumoto and Thornton
teach all the claimed functionality and structure of claim 22. We find that
Appellants’ IP message and encapsulated non-IP message are nonfunctional
descriptive material. Therefore, we must conclude that the difference
between the prior art and the claimed invention is simply a rearrangement of
nonfunctional descriptive material.
Appellants’ argue that in their claim, “call control functionality from
legacy-PBX systems may be extended to an Ethernet or LAN-implemented
PBX.” We note that no such limitation is present in the claims. Rather,
Appellants’ claims are limited to message generating, transmitting, and the
format of the message. We find no claim limitations directed to “call control
functionality” as argued.
OTHER ISSUES
The Board brings to Appellants’ and the Examiner’s attention the
Baroudi patent cited above. Should there be further prosecution of the
present or a continuing application, we recommend a review of Baroudi’s
Figures 2, 5, and 11.
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013