Ex Parte Andrews

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 15, 2016

11624261 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 15, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
111624,261 01/18/2007 Carlton Andrews
33438 7590 03/17/2016
TERRILE, CANNATTI, CHAMBERS & HOLLAND, LLP
P.O. BOX 203518
AUSTIN, TX 78720
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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
DC-11793 6290
EXAMINER
OH, ANDREW CHUNG SUK
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2466
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/17/2016 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):
tmunoz@tcchlaw.com
kchambers@tcchlaw.com
heather@tcchlaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte CARL TON ANDREWS
Appeal2014-005854
Application 11/624,261
Technology Center 2400
Before ELENI MANTIS MERCADER, ERIC S. FRAHM, and
SCOTT B. HOWARD, Administrative Patent Judges.
FRAHM, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal2014-005854
Application 11/624,261
STATEMENT OF CASE
Introduction
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
Final Rejection of claims 1-20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b). We affirm.
Exemplary Claim
Exemplary independent claim 1 under appeal, with emphasis added to
the disputed portions of the claim, reads as follows:
1. A system for configuring VoIP devices, the system
compnsmg:
an order engine operable to accept an order for one or
more of the VoIP devices, the order associating configuration
information with each of the one or more VoIP devices;
an address reader operable to read an address visible at
each of the one or more VoIP devices;
a configuration server interfaced with the order engine
and the address reader, the configuration server operable to
store the configuration information of each of the one or more
VoIP devices under a name that includes the address provided
by the address reader for each of the one or more VoIP devices;
and
a configuration engine associated with each of the one or
more VoIP devices and operable to interface with the
configuration server at power up of the VoIP device to retrieve
the configuration information having a name that includes the
address of the VoIP device.
Examiner's Rejections
( 1) The Examiner rejected claims 1-16 as being unpatentable under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Tasker et al (US 2005/0198218 Al; published Sep.
2
Appeal2014-005854
Application 11/624,261
8, 2005), Best et al (US 2005/0243809 Al; published Nov. 3, 2005) and
Panagopoulos et al (US 2006/0050688 Al; published Mar. 9, 2006). Final
Act. 4--12; Ans. 2-10.
(2) The Examiner rejected claims 17-19 as being unpatentable under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Landram et al (US 2005/0086328 Al; published
Apr. 21, 2005), Metcalf (US 2006/0285535 Al; published Dec. 21, 2006),
and Panagopoulos. Final Act. 12-15; Ans. 11-13.
(3) The Examiner rejected claim 20 as being unpatentable under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) over Landram, Metcalf, Panagopoulos, and Best. Final Act.
15-16; Ans. 13-14.
Issues on Appeal1
Based on Appellant's arguments in the Appeal Brief (App. Br. 3-7)
and the Reply Brief (Reply Br. 1-2), the following issues are presented on
appeal:
(1) Did the Examiner err in rejecting claims 1-5, 7-10, and 12-16 as
being obvious over Panagopoulos and various other references because
Panagopoulos fails to teach or suggest "the configuration server operable to
1 Appellant presents detailed arguments on the merits only with respect to
claims 1, 6, and 11 (App. Br. 3-7; Reply Br. 1-2). Appellant relies on the
arguments presented for claim 1 as to the patentability of remaining
independent claims 9 and 17 which contain similar features (App. Br. 5-6).
Accordingly, we select claim 1 as representative of the group of claims
(claims 1-5, 7-10, and 12-16) rejected for obviousness over the
combination of Tasker, Best, and Panagopoulos.
With regard to the rejection of (i) claims 17-19 over the combination
of Landram, Metcalf, and Panagopoulos; and (ii) claim 20 over the
combination of Landram, Metcalf, Panagopoulos, and Best, Appellant relies
on the arguments already presented with respect to representative claim 1
(App. Br. 5---6).
3
Appeal2014-005854
Application 11/624,261
store the configuration information of each of the one or more VoIP devices
under a name that includes the address," as recited in independent claim 1,
and as similarly recited in independent claims 9 and 17?
(2) Did the Examiner err in rejecting dependent claims 6 and 11 as
being obvious over Panagopoulos and various other references because
Panagopoulos fails to teach or suggest "the configuration server stores the
configuration for each VoIP device under a name associated with the MAC
address read from the VoIP device," as recited in dependent claim 6, and as
similarly recited in dependent claim 11?
ANALYSIS
Claims 1-5, 7-10, 12-20
We have reviewed the Examiner's rejections (Final Act. 4--16; Ans.
2-14) in light of Appellant's contentions in the Appeal Brief (App. Br. 3-7)
and the Reply Brief (Reply Br. 1-2) that the Examiner has erred, as well as
the Examiner's response (Ans. 14--20) to Appellant's arguments in the
Appeal Brief. We disagree with Appellant's conclusions.
We concur with the conclusions reached by the Examiner, and adopt
as our own ( 1) the findings and reasons set forth by the Examiner in the
action from which this appeal is taken (Final Act. 4--16; Ans. 2-14), and (2)
the reasons set forth by the Examiner in the Examiner's Answer in response
to Appellant's Appeal Brief (Ans. 14--20). We highlight and amplify certain
teachings and suggestions of the references, as well as certain ones of
Appellant's arguments as follows.
We agree with the Examiner (Ans. 6 and 14--20) as to representative
claim 1 that Panagopoulos (i-fi-f 35 and 36) teaches or suggests the disputed
4
Appeal2014-005854
Application 11/624,261
limitation of a configuration server operable to store the configuration
information of each of the one or more VoIP devices under a name that
includes the address. While Panagopoulos does utilize the manufacturer
portion of the MAC address to confirm the manufacturer of the VoIP device,
the MAC address is also stored by the server as an .ini file, which is later
sent by the server in a payload of a series of data packets to configure the
device. We further agree with the Examiner that one of ordinary skill in the
art at the time of the invention would have been motivated to modify the
VoIP systems of the various prior art references with the MAC address file
naming taught by Panagopoulos because doing so would make the
configuration file easier to identify.
In light of our agreement with the Examiner's findings, Appellant's
contentions that the combination of Panagopoulos and various other prior art
references as set forth in representative independent claim 1, and as similarly
recited in remaining independent claims 9 and 17, are not persuasive.
In view of the foregoing, we sustain the obviousness rejection of
claims 1-5, 7-10, and 12-16 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over the combination
of Tasker, Best, and Panagopoulos. For similar reasons, and we also sustain
the Examiner's obviousness rejections of claims 17-19 under 35 U.S.C. §
103(a) over the combination of Landram, Metcalf, and Panagopoulos and
claim 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over the combination of Landram,
Metcalf, Panagopoulos, and Best.
Claims 6 and 11
As discussed supra, we agree with the Examiner (Ans. 8) that
Panagopoulos teaches (i-fi-f 35 and 36) the configuration server stores the
configuration for each VoIP device under a name associated with the MAC
5
Appeal2014-005854
Application 11/624,261
address read from the VoIP device, as recited in claim 6 and as similarly
recited in claim 11. In view of the foregoing, we sustain the obviousness
rejection of dependent claims 6 and 11 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over the
combination of Tasker, Best, and Panagopoulos.
CONCLUSIONS
(1) The Examiner has not erred in rejecting claims 1-5, 7-10, and 12-
16 as being obvious over the combination of Panagopoulos and various other
prior art references because Panagopoulos teaches or suggests "the
configuration server operable to store the configuration information of each
of the one or more VoIP devices under a name that includes the address", as
recited in independent claim 1, and as similarly recited in independent
claims 9 and 1 7.
(2) The Examiner has not erred in rejecting dependent claims 6 and 11
as being obvious over the combination of Tasker, Best, and Panagopoulos
because Panagopoulos teaches or suggests "the configuration server stores
the configuration for each VoIP device under a name associated with the
MAC address read from the VoIP device," as recited in dependent claim 6,
and as similarly recited in dependent claim 11.
DECISION
The Examiner's rejections of claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
are affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l )(iv).
6
Appeal2014-005854
Application 11/624,261
AFFIRMED
7