Appeal 2007-1751
Application 09/769,511
1 The Appellant also contends the Examiner failed to show some suggestion or
2 motivation, either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally
3 available to one of ordinary skill in the art, to modify the reference or to combine
4 reference teachings (Br. 8, second to last ¶).
5 Thus, the issues under contention are whether Greene or Lynch-Aird shows a
6 set of user-specified access cost information to be applied to one or more incoming
7 calls directed to the user terminal, and whether it is proper to combine the applied
8 references.
9 The claim element “user-specified access cost information” is construed
10 according to its broadest reasonable interpretation as information in some way
11 pertaining to costs that are stated, either directly or indirectly, by the user as a
12 condition for the ability to communicate with a user (FF 06).
13 Greene describes the subscriber's specified call billing parameters incorporated
14 into a record sent to a billing system which processes the charges for inclusion in
15 the network bill sent to the caller (FF 08).
16 We find that a subscriber’s specified call billing parameter is information in
17 some way pertaining to costs that are stated, either directly or indirectly, by the
18 user as a condition for the ability to communicate with a user.
19 Thus, Green shows the claim element of a set of user-specified access cost
20 information to be applied to one or more incoming calls directed to the user
21 terminal, and we find the Appellant’s arguments unpersuasive.
22
23
11
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013