Avaya Inc.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Nov 23, 2021

2020004910 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 23, 2021)

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.
14/044,477 10/02/2013 Christopher Haun 413140-US-
NP/AVA075PA
8329
136582 7590 11/23/2021
STEVENS & SHOWALTER, LLP
Box AVAYA Inc.
7019 Corporate Way
Dayton, OH 45459-4238
EXAMINER
MESA, JOEL
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2447
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
11/23/2021 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):
pair_avaya@firsttofile.com
pto@sspatlaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte CHRISTOPHER HAUN, CARRIE KING, TATE REIMER, and
THADEUS THIGPEN
____________

Appeal 2020-004910
Application 14/044,477
Technology Center 2400
____________

Before JOSEPH L. DIXON, CATHERINE SHIANG, and
MATTHEW J. McNEILL, Administrative Patent Judges.

SHIANG, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 1–4 and 6–21, which are all the claims pending and
rejected in the application. Appeal Br. 4. We have jurisdiction under 35
U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.

1 We use “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42.
Appellant identifies Avaya Inc. as the real party in interest. Appeal Br. 2.

Appeal 2020-004910
Application 14/044,477

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
The invention relates to “conference-call systems, and in particular, to
improving the support for secure media streams in a SIP-enabled
conference.” Spec. ¶ 2. In particular,
[p] roviding security status information via media streams
is not sufficient to provide the information for each client in a
conference to every other client in the conference, because not
all clients may be receiving each media stream associated with
the conference. For example, some clients may be receiving an
audio stream without the video stream, or a video stream without
the audio stream.

Therefore, a need exists to provide security status
information regarding conference calls, in a way that can be
received by all conference participants, even if they are not
receiving all of the media streams associated with the conference.
Id. ¶¶ 11–12. Claim 1 is exemplary:
1. A method to send security status notifications of a
conference in a session initiation protocol (SIP) framework,
comprising the steps of:
receiving at a conference server from a conference client
a request for a SIP message;
creating, by the conference server, a SIP message
comprising information about security status of a conference
resource, wherein the information about security status
indicates whether the conference resource is encrypted; and
sending, by the conference server, the created SIP
message to all conference subscribers.

Appeal 2020-004910
Application 14/044,477

3
References and Rejections2
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § References
1–3, 10–12,
16–18
103 Jeong (US 2006/0245378 A1, November 2, 2006),
Masuhiro (US 2008/0025516 A1, January 31,
2008)
4, 6, 19, 21 103 Jeong, Masuhiro, Anchan (US 2010/0257365 A1,
October 7, 2010)
8, 9, 13, 15,
20
103 Jeong, Masuhiro, Schwagmann (US 2007/0097886
A1, May 3, 2007)
7, 14 103 Jeong, Masuhiro, Karacali-Akyamac (US
2008/0025223 A1, January 31, 2008)

ANALYSIS
Obviousness
On this record, the Examiner did not err in rejecting claim 1.
We have reviewed and considered Appellant’s arguments, but such
arguments are unpersuasive. To the extent consistent with our analysis
below, we adopt the Examiner’s findings and conclusions in (i) the action
from which this appeal is taken and (ii) the Answer.3

2 Throughout this opinion, we refer to the (1) Final Office Action dated
September 3, 2019 (“Final Act.”); (2) Appeal Brief dated January 9, 2020
(“Appeal Br.”); (3) Examiner’s Answer dated May 15, 2020 (“Ans.”); and
(4) Reply Brief dated June 16, 2020 (“Reply Br.”).
3 To the extent Appellant advances new arguments in the Reply Brief
without showing good cause, Appellant has forfeited such arguments. See
37 C.F.R. § 41.41(b)(2); In re Google Tech. Holdings LLC, 980 F.3d 858,
863 (Fed. Cir. 2020) (“[w]aiver is different from forfeiture”; “Whereas
forfeiture is the failure to make the timely assertion of a right, waiver is the
‘intentional relinquishment or abandonment of a known right.’”) (quoting
United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725, 733 (1993); Johnson v. Zerbst, 304
U.S. 458, 464 (1938)).
Appeal 2020-004910
Application 14/044,477

4

I
Appellant contends Masuhiro does not teach “a SIP message
comprising information about security status of a conference resource,
wherein the information about security status indicates whether the
conference resource is encrypted,” as recited in claim 1 (emphases added).
See Appeal Br. 9–11; Reply Br. 2–4. In particular, Appellant contends:
[T]he encryption-related information in Masuhiro et al. is related
to peer-to-peer communication sessions between two clients. . . .
The server in Masuhiro et al. plays a role in establishing the peer-
to-peer communication session but there are no messages in
Masuhiro . . . that include information about a conference
resource or whether a conference resource is encrypted.
Appeal Br. 10 (emphases omitted); see also Appeal Br. 10–11; Reply
Br. 2–4.
Appellant has not persuaded us of error, as Appellant’s arguments are
not directed to the Examiner’s specific findings. Because the Examiner
relies on the combination of Jeong and Masuhiro to teach the disputed claim
limitations, Appellant cannot establish nonobviousness by attacking
Masuhiro individually. See In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed.
Cir. 1986). In particular, Appellant’s argument that Masuhiro does not teach
the claimed “conference” (Appeal Br. 10–11; Reply Br. 2–4) is
unpersuasive, because the Examiner finds—and Appellant does not
dispute—Jeong teaches that term. See Final Act. 4; Jeong ¶ 3 (“Several
approaches are possible for multi-participant conferencing.”); ¶ 58 (“To
initiate a new conference . . . .”). The Examiner further finds—and
Appellant does not dispute—Masuhiro teaches “a SIP message comprising
information about security status of a . . . resource, wherein the information
Appeal 2020-004910
Application 14/044,477

5
about security status indicates whether the . . . resource is encrypted.” See
Final Act. 4–5. Because Appellant does not dispute the Examiner’s rationale
for the proposed combination, Appellant has not shown the Examiner errs in
concluding that Jeong and Masuhiro collectively teach “a SIP message
comprising information about security status of a conference resource,
wherein the information about security status indicates whether the
conference resource is encrypted,” as required by claim 1 (emphases added).

II
Appellant contends Jeong does not teach “sending, by the conference
server, the created SIP message to all conference subscribers,” as recited in
claim 1 (emphasis added). See Appeal Br. 11–12; Reply Br. 4–5. In
particular, Appellant contends Jeong does not teach the claimed “SIP
message.” See Appeal Br. 11–12; Reply Br. 4–5.
Appellant has not persuaded us of error. Because the Examiner relies
on the combination of Jeong and Masuhiro to teach the disputed claim
limitation, Appellant cannot establish nonobviousness by attacking Jeong
individually. See Merck, 800 F.2d at 1097. The Examiner finds—and
Appellant does not dispute—Jeong teaches “sending, by the conference
server, the created [message] to all conference subscribers.” See Final Act.
4. As discussed above, Masuhiro teaches a “SIP message.” Because
Appellant does not dispute the Examiner’s rationale for the proposed
combination, Appellant has not shown the Examiner errs in concluding that
Jeong and Masuhiro collectively teach “sending, by the conference server,
the created SIP message to all conference subscribers,” as required by claim
1 (emphasis added).
Appeal 2020-004910
Application 14/044,477

6
Because Appellant has not persuaded us the Examiner erred, we
sustain the Examiner’s rejection of independent claim 1.
Appellant argues independent claims 10 and 16 are allowable for
similar or the same reasons (discussed above). See Appeal Br. 12–13. As
discussed above, Appellant’s arguments with respect to claim 1 are
unpersuasive. Therefore, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of
independent claims 10 and 16.
We also sustain the Examiner’s rejection of corresponding dependent
claims 2, 3, 6–9, 11–15, 17, 18, 20, and 21, as Appellant does not advance
separate substantive arguments about those claims. See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(1)(iv).

Separately Argued Dependent Claims
Regarding dependent claim 4, Appellant argues
Anchan discloses a provisioning server that monitors a multicast
group membership and can update encryption key information
accordingly. However, Appellant respectfully submits that this
general teaching about multicast groups is not sufficiently
detailed to teach or suggest the specific element of claim 4 in
which a server (e.g., a conference server) explicitly receives from
a client (e.g., a conference client) a specific request for a SIP
message because membership in the conference changed.
Appeal Br. 14; see also Reply Br. 5.
Appellant has not persuaded us of error. Because the Examiner relies
on the combination of Jeong, Masuhiro, and Anchan to teach claim 4,
Appellant cannot establish nonobviousness by attacking Anchan
individually. See Merck, 800 F.2d at 1097.
Appeal 2020-004910
Application 14/044,477

7
Claim 4 depends from claim 1 and recites: “The method of claim 1,
wherein the request for the SIP message is caused by a change in
membership of the conference.”
In connection with claim 1, the Examiner finds—and Appellant does
not dispute—Jeong teaches “a request for a SIP message.” See Final Act. 4.
As discussed above, Jeong teaches the “conference.”
Further, Anchan teaches “caused by a change in membership of.” See
Anchan ¶ 48 (“This can be triggered based on the need to change the GSK
as a result of group membership changes . . . .”). Because Appellant does
not dispute the Examiner’s rationale for the proposed combination,
Appellant has not shown the Examiner erred in concluding that Jeong,
Masuhiro, and Anchan collectively teach “wherein the request for the SIP
message is caused by a change in membership of the conference,” as
required by claim 4.
Because Appellant has not persuaded us the Examiner erred, and for
similar reasons discussed above with respect to claim 1, we sustain the
Examiner’s rejection of dependent claim 4.
For similar reasons discussed above with respect to claim 4, we also
sustain the Examiner’s rejection of dependent claim 19, as Appellant argues
dependent claim 19 is also allowable “for the reasons provided with respect
to claim 4” (Appeal Br. 15).

CONCLUSION
We affirm the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1–4 and 6–21
under 35 U.S.C. § 103.

Appeal 2020-004910
Application 14/044,477

8

DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:

Claim(s)
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§
Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1–3, 10–12,
16–18
103 Jeong, Masuhiro 1–3, 10–12,
16–18

4, 6, 19, 21 103 Jeong, Masuhiro,
Anchan
4, 6, 19, 21
8, 9, 13, 15,
20
103 Jeong, Masuhiro,
Schwagmann
8, 9, 13, 15,
20

7, 14 103 Jeong, Masuhiro,
Karacali-Akyamac
7, 14
Overall
Outcome
1–4, 6–21

No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv). See 37
C.F.R. § 41.50(f).

AFFIRMED