Opinion ID: 221848
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Reexaminations

Text: The ‘275 Patent has undergone two consolidated reexaminations. In both instances, the PTO confirmed the patentability of all claims of the ‘275 Patent and Reexamination Certificates were issued without any amendments. The first reexamination was a consolidation of three separate requests by third parties. Specifically, on December 20, 2000, the PTO indicated that it intended to reject Claims 1-23 of the ‘275 Patent as being obvious or anticipated by various patents. In response, Aerotel argued that the prior art references do not teach calling from “any available telephone” as provided in Claim 9. 11 AEROTEL LTD v. TELCO GROUP And, according to Aerotel, since none of the prior art references included a “special exchange,” they could not teach “coupling a calling party station to a special exchange,” as provided in claim 9. Id. During an interview with the examiner in 2001, Aerotel presented a PowerPoint slide describing the prepaid telephone system. In the series of slides, Aerotel depicted a dial counting down the remaining credit from $5 to $3 to $0. The final slide showed a scenario where the special exchange disconnected the call because the prepayment amount of $5 equaled the running cost of the call ($5). On December 16, 2002, the Examiner issued a Notice of Intent to Issue Reexamination Certificate. In the Notice, the Examiner stated, in relevant part, that: The prior art of record fails to teach a unique method for making telephone calls from any available telephone . . . storing the prepayment amount in a memory in a special exchange . . . monitoring the prepayment amount less deduc- tions for the running cost of the call; and discon- necting the call when the prepayment amount has been spent as claimed in claim 1. A485-86. Accordingly, the PTO issued a Reexamination Certificate on April 8, 2003. On April 13, 2005, the PTO issued a second Office Action, in which the examiner proposed to hold certain claims, including Claim 9, unpatentable as obvious over the prior art. Aerotel submitted a lengthy response, and AEROTEL LTD v. TELCO GROUP 12 the PTO again confirmed the ‘275 Patent’s validity in a Reexamination Certificate dated June 27, 2006. 4