Appeal 2007-1751
Application 09/769,511
1 The Examiner also found that Chang discloses claim element [4], a web page
2 which enables subscriber access to control and reporting functionalities of a
3 communication network, such as the advanced intelligent telephone network
4 (Answer 4, second ¶).
5 The Examiner concluded that it would have obvious to one of ordinary skill to
6 modify Greene to include the feature of Lynch-Aird and Chang to provide
7 recipient identifiers to indicate that the corresponding customer received the call
8 and to determine which party pays, as well as, providing the subscriber with online
9 capabilities to modify their service.
10 The Appellant contends that in independent claim 16, it is the user (i.e., the
11 entity receiving the incoming call) in the claimed method that specifies the access
12 cost information rather than the service provider, network operator or other entity
13 (Br. 5, second to last ¶).
14 The Appellant contends that Lynch-Aird does not describe access cost
15 information specified by the user (Br. 7, first ¶). With respect to Greene, Appellant
16 notes that Greene refers to "subscriber's specified call billing parameters" rather
17 than subscriber-specified call billing parameters (emphasis in original). The
18 Appellant further contends that the Examiner explicitly states on p. 2 of the final
19 Office Action that "Greene does not disclose that the user-specified access cost
20 information includes one or more access rules specified by the user and indicates a
21 particular access cost for an incoming call under one or more specified conditions."
22 The Appellant concludes that Greene, like Lynch-Aird, does not teach or suggest
23 "user-specified access cost information" like that claimed in claim 16 (Br. 7 second
24 to last ¶).
10
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013