AVAYA INC.Download PDFPatent Trials and Appeals BoardOct 25, 20212020004995 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 25, 2021) Copy Citation UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE United States Patent and Trademark Office Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS P.O. Box 1450 Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450 www.uspto.gov APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO. 13/753,171 01/29/2013 Parameshwaran Krishnan 4366CSM-171 3644 48500 7590 10/25/2021 SHERIDAN ROSS P.C. 1560 BROADWAY, SUITE 1200 DENVER, CO 80202 EXAMINER POPE, KHARYE ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2652 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 10/25/2021 ELECTRONIC Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding. The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication. Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the following e-mail address(es): cjacquet@sheridanross.com edocket@sheridanross.com pair_Avaya@firsttofile.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte PARAMESHWARAN KRISHNAN and NAVJOT SINGH Appeal 2020-004995 Application 13/753,171 Technology Center 2600 Before CARL W. WHITEHEAD JR., DAVID J. CUTITTA II, and MICHAEL J. ENGLE, Administrative Patent Judges. CUTITTA, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 9, 10, 12, 14, 16, 21, 22, 24–26, and 28–30, all of the claims under consideration.2 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM. 1 “Appellant” refers to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42(a). Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Avaya Inc. Appeal Brief filed November 18, 2019 (“Appeal Br.”) at 2. 2 Appellant cancelled claims 1–8, 11, 13, 15, 17–20, 23, and 27. Appeal Br. 9–12. Appeal 2020-004995 Application 13/753,171 2 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER Summary The subject matter of Appellant’s application relates to “identifying conference participants at a communication endpoint.” Spec. 1:5–6.3 According to Appellant, a “problem arises when two or more people share a conference endpoint, such as a speakerphone, as is commonly found in a conference room. In particular, it can be difficult for the conference system to determine the identities of those persons actually participating in the conference through a shared endpoint.” Id. at 1:15–18. Appellant describes the invention as a system and method for identifying different users of a conference endpoint, such as users on a single speaker phone. Id. at 4:17–20. The users are identified by providing a mechanism for a participant to register for the conference by associating the speakerphone with the conference endpoint. Id. at 2:14–15. The registering participant may also identify other participants at the conference endpoint (speakerphone) and the system uses this information to create a roster of registered conference participants. Id. at 2:14–20. Exemplary Claim Claims 9, 21, and 28 are independent. Claim 9, reproduced below with limitations at issue italicized, exemplifies the claimed subject matter: 3 In addition to the Appeal Brief noted above, we refer to: (1) the original Specification filed January 29, 2013 (“Spec.”); (2) the Non-Final Office Action mailed June 21, 2019 (“Non-Final Act.”); (3) the Examiner’s Answer mailed April 13, 2020 (“Ans.”); and (4) the Reply Brief filed June 15, 2020 (“Reply Br.”). Appeal 2020-004995 Application 13/753,171 3 9. A method for identifying a party using a shared communication endpoint that is participating in a communication session, the method comprising: providing, by a conferencing application executing on a communication server, one or more unique identification codes to one or more mobile devices associated with participants of the communication session; receiving, by the conferencing application executing on the communication server, at least one of the one or more unique identification codes; registering, by the conferencing application executing on the communication server, each participant based on the received one or more unique identification codes; generating, by the conferencing application executing on the communication server, a roster that includes information identifying each registered participant in the communication session; and comparing the roster of registered participants to a list of expected participants to identify missing participants; and locating and sending an alert to the identified missing participants. Appeal Br. 9, Claims Appendix. REFERENCES The Examiner relies on the following prior art references as evidence:4 Name Reference Date Ellsworth US 2011/0047478 A1 Feb. 24, 2011 Ramachandran US 2011/0141951 A1 June 16, 2011 Jacobstein US 2011/0182415 A1 July 28, 2011 Koller US 8,558,864 B1 Oct. 15, 2013 4 All citations to the references use the first-named inventor or author only. Appeal 2020-004995 Application 13/753,171 4 REJECTIONS The Examiner rejects the claims as follows: Claim(s) Rejected 35 U.S.C. § References Non-Final Act. 9, 12, 14, 28, 30 103(a) Jacobstein, Ramachandran 3 10 103(a) Jacobstein, Ramachandran, Ellsworth 5 16, 21, 24–26, 29 103(a) Jacobstein, Ramachandran, Koller 6 22 103(a) Jacobstein, Ramachandran, Koller, Ellsworth 9 OPINION We review the appealed rejections for error based upon the issues identified by Appellant and in light of Appellant’s arguments and evidence. Ex parte Frye, 94 USPQ2d 1072, 1075 (BPAI 2010) (precedential). Arguments not made are waived. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv) (2019). We disagree with Appellant that the Examiner errs and we adopt as our own the findings and conclusions set forth by the Examiner to the extent consistent with our analysis herein. Non-Final Act. 2–10; Ans. 11–13. The Examiner relies on a combination of Jacobstein and Ramachandran to teach or suggest the subject matter of claim 9. Non-Final Act. 3–4. Independent claim 9 recites, in part, “generating, by the conferencing application executing on the communication server, a roster that includes information identifying each registered participant in the communication session.” Appeal Br. 9. Appeal 2020-004995 Application 13/753,171 5 The Examiner finds Ramachandran’s discussion of a teleconference server teaches or suggests this limitation. Non-Final Act. 3 (citing Ramachandran ¶¶ 28, 55). The Examiner also finds Jacobstein’s “table storing information defining parameters of a scheduled conference call” teaches, for example, generating “a roster of registered participants for a conference call scheduled at 3:30.” Ans. 11 (citing Jacobstein ¶ 16, Fig. 3). Appellant argues that the “cited references, individually or in combination, fail to disclose generating a roster,” as claimed, because neither Jacobstein nor Ramachandran “discuss multiple participants using a shared endpoint.” Appeal Br. 6 (emphasis omitted). Appellant further argues that Ramachandran “does not disclose identifying multiple participants using a shared communication device to generate a roster of registered participants.” Id. at 7. Neither of these arguments is persuasive because claim 9 neither recites “multiple participants using a shared endpoint” nor “identifying multiple participants using a shared communication device.” Hence, the arguments are based on limitations not found in the claim. Limitations not appearing in the claim cannot be relied upon for patentability. In re Self, 671 F.2d 1344, 1348 (CCPA 1982). Claim 9 further recites, in part, “comparing the roster of registered participants to a list of expected participants to identify missing participants.” Appeal Br. 9. The Examiner finds Ramachandran’s discussion of a teleconference server teaches or suggests this limitation. Non-Final Act. 3–4 (citing Ramachandran ¶¶ 28, 55). Appeal 2020-004995 Application 13/753,171 6 Appellant argues Ramachandran does not disclose “comparing the roster of registered participants to a list of expected to [sic] participants to identify missing participants,” as claimed, because: Although, the Ramachandran reference discusses sending a meeting reminder via email to an unreachable participant (i.e., missing participant), the participant is determined to be unreachable based on fail[ed] attempts by the teleconference server to reach the participant, not by comparing a roster of registered participants to a list of expected participants. Appeal Br. 7; see also Reply Br. 2. We are unpersuaded. Ramachandran discloses that teleconference server 90 includes a user profile manager 110, which “store[s] a user profile 112 for each participant including the host in the database 110.” Ramachandran ¶ 28. According to Ramachandran, the user profile manager 110 generates a list that includes identification information for each expected conference participant: For each participant [in the teleconference] (e.g., of the communication devices 20–24), prior to the teleconference call, the user profile manager 110 is utilized to configure the user profile 112 with an email identification (ID) such as an email address, a list of contact numbers (reach numbers) for the participants, and user preferences. Each participant has a user profile 112 with one or more reach numbers. Id. We agree with the Examiner’s finding that Ramachandran’s list including identification information for each desired conference participant teaches or suggests the claimed list of expected participants, and Ramachandran’s list of participants currently on the call teaches or suggests the claimed roster of registered participants. Non-Final Act. 3–4; Ans. 11–12 Appeal 2020-004995 Application 13/753,171 7 (e.g., “The GUI of the management tool displays to the host all conference participants who are present in the lobby (roster of registered participants).” (emphasis omitted)). Ramachandran further explains that, using the stored user profiles 112 and contact information for each participant, the “teleconferencing application 106 of the timeslot teleconference server 90 is operative to call all the participants on the next timeslot (who are not already connected to the teleconference bridge 70 from a previous timeslot).” Ramachandran ¶ 55. If the participant picks up the call, the teleconferencing application automatically adds the participant. Id. “In case a participant (e.g., at communication device 21) does not pick up (e.g., answer the ringing communication device 21), the teleconferencing application 106 . . . will send the unreachable participant (e.g., at communication device 21) a meeting reminder via email.” Id. Accordingly, the Examiner-cited portions of Ramachandran discuss attempting to call missing participants using participant contact information obtained from a list of expected participants (the collection of user profiles 112 for each expected participant). The missing participants are “all the participants . . . who are not already connected” (e.g., the expected participants not on the roster of registered participants already in the lobby). Ramachandran ¶ 55. If the missing participant does not pick up the call, the teleconferencing application 106 sends an email. Id. We agree with the Examiner that Ramachandran teaches or at least suggests comparing the roster of registered participants to a list of expected participants to identify missing participants, because Ramachandran calls or ultimately emails the missing participants who are supposed to be on the Appeal 2020-004995 Application 13/753,171 8 conference but are not already on the call. Thus, Ramachandran discusses comparing a roster of registered participants to a list of expected participants, and identifying any participants who are missing participants. Ramachandran’s teleconferencing application 106 then sends the missing participant an alert by phone or email. Accordingly, we find unpersuasive Appellant’s argument that Ramachandran does not teach or suggest “comparing a roster of registered participants to a list of expected participants.” Appeal Br. 7; Reply Br. 2. Appellant does not persuade us of reversible error in the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of independent claim 9. We, therefore, sustain the Examiner’s rejection of that claim, as well as the rejection of claims 10, 12, 14, 16, 21, 22, 24–26, and 28–30, which Appellant does not argue separately or only nominally argues separately. Appeal Br. 5–7. Appeal 2020-004995 Application 13/753,171 9 DECISION SUMMARY In summary: Claim(s) Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 9, 12, 14, 28, 30 103(a) Jacobstein, Ramachandran 9, 12, 14, 28, 30 10 103(a) Jacobstein, Ramachandran, Ellsworth 10 16, 21, 24– 26, 29 103(a) Jacobstein, Ramachandran, Koller 16, 21, 24– 26, 29 22 103(a) Jacobstein, Ramachandran, Koller, Ellsworth 22 Overall Outcome 9, 10, 12, 14, 16, 21, 22, 24–26, 28–30 TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv). AFFIRMED Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation