Appeal 2007-1751
Application 09/769,511
1 The Appellant has not separately argued claims 2-5, 8, 10, 11, and 15-19, and
2 thus they fall with claim 16.
3 Accordingly we sustain the Examiner's rejection of claims 2-5, 8-12, and 15-19
4 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Greene, Lynch-Aird, and
5 Chang.
6
7 Claim 6 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Greene, Lynch-Aird,
8 Chang, and Harrison.
9 The Appellant contends that claim 6 is patentable for the same reasons as claim
10 16 (Br. 10:Top of page), and therefore claim 6 stands or falls with claim 16. We
11 found the Appellant’s arguments, supra, regarding claim 16 unpersuasive.
12 Accordingly we sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 6 under 35 U.S.C.
13 § 103(a) as obvious over Greene, Lynch-Aird, Chang, and Harrison.
14
15 Claims 13 and 14 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Greene,
16 Lynch-Aird, Chang, Harrison, and Haralambopoulos.
17 Claim 13 adds the limitation that the set of user-specified access cost
18 information comprises one or more access rules specified by the user and
19 indicating a particular access cost for an incoming call under one or more specified
20 conditions, and at least one of the one or more access rules is associated with an
21 identifier of a particular call originator.
22 The Examiner found that Haralambopoulos discloses that the service provider
23 (called party) has a plurality of individual value-added telephone numbers with
24 each representing a different billing rate to reflect the services rendered, and
15
Page: Previous 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013