Appeal 2007-1751
Application 09/769,511
1 Greene’s subscribers enter or program preselected telephone numbers and/or a
2 local exchange into their telephone system (FF 10). Greene does not describe the
3 physical characteristics delineating the telephone system’s location, but the act of
4 entering this data into their phone system at least suggests that the data be, if not
5 outright implies that the data is, stored locally, similar to the storage of speed dial
6 numbers in handset databases. Thus, we find the Appellant’ arguments
7 unpersuasive.
8 Dependent Claim 12
9 The Appellant separately argues the patentability of claim 12. Claim 12 adds
10 the limitation that a user associated with the terminal is permitted to waive the
11 access cost for the given incoming call [from intermediate claim 11] wherein the
12 waiver of the access cost is in response to an offer from the call originator made
13 after the incoming call is routed to and accepted at the user terminal.
14 Appellant's argument is that Greene does not teach or suggest that the “waiver
15 of the access cost is a result of an offer and acceptance in the manner claimed "
16 (Br. 9:Last full ¶).
17 In response to the Appellant's argument, the Examiner asserts that Greene
18 teaches that the subscriber has an option to void or waive the surcharge, and if the
19 subscriber is sympathetic to a particular charity or solicitation, he or she may void
20 the surcharge at any time during the conversation by causing the call to bypass the
21 billing and crediting functions (Answer 10-11). This is consistent with our
22 findings (FF 11).
23 This portion of Greene clearly recites that the waiver may be made in response
24 to a solicitation, which may be characterized as an offer. Therefore, we find the
25 Appellant’s arguments unpersuasive.
14
Page: Previous 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013