Ex Parte Baratz et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 30, 2016

12836868 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 30, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/836,868 07/15/2010
93379 7590
Setter Roche LLP
14694 Orchard Parkway
Building A, Suite 200
Westminster, CO 80023
09/01/2016
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Alan Edward Baratz
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.
648.0003 3094
EXAMINER
PATEL, PARTHKUMAR
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2468
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/01/2016 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):
sarah@setterroche.com
pair_avaya@firsttofile.com
uspto@setterroche.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte ALAN EDWARD BARA TZ, ANTHONY FRANK BARTOLO,
JA YESH GOVINDARAJAN, ANWAR A. SIDDIQUI,
JOHN F. BUFORD, and VYANKATESH BALAJI DESHPANDE1
Appeal2014-009758
Application 12/836,868
Technology Center 2400
Before MICHAEL J. STRAUSS, JON M. JURGOV AN, and
MICHAEL M. BARRY, Administrative Patent Judges.
BARRY, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
Final Rejection of claims 1 and 3-20, which constitute all the claims
pending in this application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.
1 Appellants identify the real party in interest as Avaya Inc. App. Br. 2.
Appeal2014-009758
Application 12/836,838
Introduction
Appellants state that contemporary peer-to-peer ("P2P") Voice-over-
IP ("VoIP") products "lack many of the features required for enterprise class
service." Spec. i-f 4. Appellants' disclosure relates to "providing an
enhanced P2P VoIP experience whereby persona information for an
originating session participant who is not on a P2P VoIP network is
delivered for display to another session participant who is connected to the
P2P network." Spec. i-f 5.
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Claim 1 is representative:
1. A method of operating a communication system to
establish communication sessions between an origination
network and a peer-to-peer network, the method comprising:
receiving session signaling to establish a session between
an origination device in the origination network and a
destination node in the peer-to-peer network, wherein the
session signaling includes a participant identifier associated
with the origination device;
processing the participant identifier to determine if
persona information that identifies an originating participant
and an entity associated with the originating participant is
available for display by a destination device registered as the
destination node on the peer-to-peer network and, if the persona
information is available, transferring the persona information
for delivery to and display by the destination device to a
destination participant;
establishing the session between the origination device
and the destination device over the origination network and the
peer-to-peer network; and
exchanging user communications for the session between
the origination device and the destination device,
2
Appeal2014-009758
Application 12/836,838
wherein establishing the session comprises establishing a
first leg from the origination device to a gateway[,] wherein the
origination device is not registered as a node on the peer-to-peer
network and wherein the gateway is registered as a node on
the peer-to-peer network[,] and a second leg from the gateway
to the destination device.
App. Br. 10 (Claims App 'x) ( dispositive limitation highlighted, punctuation
added for convenience).
References and Rejections
Claims 1, 3, 5-14, and 16-20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as obvious Caballero-Mc Cann et al. (US 2006/01203 77 A 1; June 8, 2006)
("Caballero-McCann"), Ansari et al. (US 2010/0071053 Al; Mar. 18, 2010)
("Anasari"), and Stanforth (US 2002/0058504 Al; May 16, 2002). Final
Act. 4--20.
Claims 4 and 15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious
over Caballero, Ansari, Stanforth, and Hamilton et al. (US 7,613,692 B2;
Nov. 3; 2009) ("Hamilton"). Final Act. 20-21.
ANALYSIS
Appellants argue the Examiner errs in finding Stanforth teaches or
suggests "the gateway is registered on the peer-to-peer network," as recited
in claim 1. App. Br. 7-8. Appellants contend that "while Stanforth may
teach that registration is performed by terminals, Stanforth does not propose
that a gateway undertake[s] the process of peer-to-peer registration," and
accordingly, "Stanforth does not provide that the gateway is registered as a
node, even if the gateway communicates with a terminal that is registered."
Id. Appellants insist that "[t]he fact that peer terminals can communicate
through a gateway does not teach that the gateway itself is registered as a
node on the peer-to-peer network." Id. (emphasis removed).
3
Appeal2014-009758
Application 12/836,838
The Examiner answers that Stanforth discloses that a "radio terminal
of the ad-hoc, peer-to-peer radio system of [its] invention is connected to the
outside world via gateways, which gateways are, in tum[], connected to a
gateway controller which controls the establishment of outgoing and
incoming calls .... " Ans. 1. The Examiner finds that, for the peer-to-peer
network taught by Stanforth, the "gateway must be registered with the
network to enable such peer-to-peer communications." Id. at 2.
Appellants reply, inter alia, with an example for how gateways work
within a peer-to-peer network without being registered as nodes:
For example, both a terminal in California and a terminal
in New York may be registered as nodes in Stanforth's peer-to-
peer network. Rather than attempting to hop across the country
through numerous other terminals, Stanforth teaches that
gateways to other wide area networks can be used to span the
distance. Those gateways, in addition to other network
elements, are used to exchange the peer communications
between the two terminals. However, neither the gateways nor
the other elements are also registered as nodes on the peer=to=
peer network.
Reply Br. 2.
We agree with Appellants. Nodes in a peer-to-peer network function
as both a client and a server with respect to other peer nodes. See, e.g.,
http://web.archive.org/web/20081217085439/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
Peer-to-peer (archived Wikipedia page from 2008). Those with ordinary
skill in peer-to-peer networking would have understood that basic
underlying network components such as routers, gateways, and bridges
provide their network functionality, including processing of peer-to-peer
network traffic, without being nodes in the peer-to-peer network, i.e.,
without functioning as both (or even either) a client and a server with respect
4
Appeal2014-009758
Application 12/836,838
to other nodes. There is, therefore, no need for such devices to register as
nodes as claimed. The Examiner errs in finding the Stanforth teaches or
suggests its "gateway must be registered with the network to enable such
peer-to-peer communications" (Ans. 2).
We accordingly do not sustain the rejection of claim 1. For the same
reason, we also do not sustain the rejection of the other independent claims,
10 and 12, each of which includes the same "wherein the gateway is
registered as a node on the peer-to-peer network" limitation. We therefore
also do not sustain the rejection of the dependent claims, 3-9, 11, and 13-20.
DECISION
For the above reasons, we reverse the rejection of claims 1 and 3-20.
REVERSED
5