Appeal 2007-1751
Application 09/769,511
1 The remaining issue is whether the applied references are properly
2 combined.
3 We find that Greene is directed towards charging a surcharge to a caller
4 (FF 07), that Lynch-Aird is directed towards applying different charging schemes
5 to calls by using multiple recipient identifiers when multiple networks are
6 involved, (FF 12-13) and Chang is directed toward providing telephone users with
7 an internet interface to manage their accounts (FF 14).
8 We further find that the Examiner’s stated motivation to provide recipient
9 identifiers to indicate that the corresponding customer received the call and to
10 determine which party pays, as well as, providing the subscriber with online
11 capabilities to modify their service is supported by these teachings with the art
12 applied.
13 We understand the Examiner’s findings as to motivation to be that Greene
14 provides the basic call charging scheme, but its high level teachings raise some
15 implementation detail issues, such as how the system actually traps the identities of
16 the caller and subscriber. Lynch-Aird is directed toward solving this
17 implementation detail by the use of originator and recipient identifiers (FF 12-13).
18 Similarly, Greene does not identify the mechanism that its subscriber would
19 employ to actually provide the information needed to implement the charging
20 scheme. Chang is directed toward solving that implementation detail by providing
21 a standardized interface for managing telephone service through an internet
22 interface (FF 14).
23 As held in KSR, a combination of familiar elements according to known
24 methods is likely to be obvious when it yields predictable results. Fleshing out
12
Page: Previous 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013