10697810 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 30, 2014)

Ex Parte Baxley et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardApr 30, 2014

10697810 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 30, 2014)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ________________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ________________ Ex parte WARREN E. BAXLEY, GREGORY A. CLEMSON, WILLIAM P. ERNSTROM, ERIC J. NYLANDER, THOMAS W. STARK, and THOMAS E. YACKAY JR ________________ Appeal 2011-010811 Application 10/697,810 Technology Center 2400 ________________ Before STEVEN D. A. McCARTHY, BRETT C. MARTIN, and JEREMY J. CURCURI, Administrative Patent Judges. CURCURI, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s rejection of claims 3-5, 7-10, 12-15, and 40. Claims 1, 2, 11, and 16-31 are canceled. Claims 6 and 32-39 are withdrawn. App. Br. 3. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). Claim 40 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as anticipated by Rosenberg (US 6,937,597 B1; issued Aug. 30, 2005). Ans. 4-5. Appeal 2011-010811 Application 10/697,810 2 Claims 3, 7, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Detampel, Jr. (US 5,995,608; issued Nov. 30, 1999) and Rosenberg. Ans. 6-10. Claims 4 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as obvious over Detampel, Jr., Rosenberg, and Thomas (US 6,421,339 B1; issued July 16, 2002). Ans. 11-12. Claims 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as obvious over Detampel, Jr., Rosenberg, and Jurkevics (US 5,978,463; issued Nov. 2, 1999). Ans. 12-13. Claims 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as obvious over Detampel, Jr., Rosenberg, and Semaan (US 5,680,392; issued Oct. 21, 1997). Ans. 13-16. We affirm. STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants’ invention relates to “large-scale, fault-tolerant audio conferencing in a purely packet-switched network.” Spec. 1:8-10. Claim 40 is illustrative and reproduced below: 40. A method of adding an additional endpoint to an already active audio conference, the method comprising: selecting an endpoint not already participating in an audio conference; obtaining a destination address for the selected endpoint from a packet-switched conferencing system component, providing the destination address to a multipoint control unit managing the audio conference; Appeal 2011-010811 Application 10/697,810 3 placing an outbound point to point call from the multipoint control unit to the additional endpoint; and adding the additional endpoint to the audio conference. ANALYSIS THE ANTICIPATION REJECTION OF CLAIM 40 BY ROSENBERG The Examiner finds Rosenberg describes all limitations of claim 40. Ans. 4-5. The Examiner relies on Rosenberg’s proxy server 220 (Fig. 3) for describing the recited multipoint control unit managing the audio conference and placing an outbound point-to-point call. Ans. 5 (citing col. 6, ll. 14-24); see also Ans. 17-26. Appellants argue Rosenberg’s proxy server is not a multipoint control unit, does not manage an audio conference, and does not place an outbound call. Appellants also argue Rosenberg, col. 5-6, describes a single user calling another single user. See App. Br. 10-13; see also Reply Br. 5-10. We are not persuaded of Examiner error. Rosenberg (Fig. 3) illustrates a proxy server 220. Rosenberg describes: The INVITE request is received by proxy server 220 at domain cs.columbia.edu 200. The proxy server 220 may, for example, send the target “henning” to a location server 230, which returns a location of “hgs@play” to the proxy server 220 as the location of user henning. In step 310, therefore, proxy server 220 sends a new INVITE request to hgs@play. As in step 300, this INVITE request also contains FROM, TO, and CALL-ID header fields. It is particularly noted that the call identifier in the CALL-ID header field is the same, in order to maintain an association with the original request. Appeal 2011-010811 Application 10/697,810 4 Rosenberg, col. 6, ll. 14-24. We agree with the Examiner that Rosenberg describes the recited providing the destination address to a multipoint control unit managing the audio conference (Rosenberg returns a location of “hgs@play” to proxy server 220). See Ans. 5. We also agree with the Examiner that Rosenberg describes the recited placing an outbound point to point call from the multipoint control unit to the additional endpoint (Rosenberg’s proxy server 220 sends an INVITE request to hgs@play). See Ans. 5. Regarding Appellants’ arguments that Rosenberg’s proxy server is not a multipoint control unit, does not manage an audio conference, and does not place an outbound call, we find these arguments unavailing. Appellants’ Specification does not define the term “multipoint control unit,” but does describe “[t]he MCU 160 supports audio conferences between three or more endpoints 120.” Spec. 11:12-13. We agree with the Examiner that Rosenberg’s proxy server 220 describes the recited multipoint control unit because Rosenberg’s proxy server supports audio conferences. We note that the broad claim language “managing the audio conference” does not preclude a finding that Rosenberg describes the recited multipoint control unit because managing the audio conference includes setting up the audio conference, which includes Rosenberg’s proxy server’s sending INVITE requests. Thus, Rosenberg’s proxy server is managing the audio conference as broadly recited in claim 40. Further, we note that the broad claim language “placing an outbound point to point call” does not preclude a finding that Rosenberg describes the recited multipoint control Appeal 2011-010811 Application 10/697,810 5 unit because the INVITE message sent to hgs@play is outbound, sent point- to-point, and is a call to hgs@play. Regarding Appellants’ further argument that Rosenberg, col. 5-6, describes a single user calling another single user, we also find this argument unavailing because Rosenberg, col. 5-6, describes Internet telephony signaling which may be used to invite new participants to a call (second party, or third or later parties). See Ans. 19-20 (citing Rosenberg, col. 5, ll. 33-40). We, therefore, sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 40. THE OBVIOUSNESS REJECTION OF CLAIMS 3, 7, AND 12 OVER DETAMPEL, JR. AND ROSENBERG The Examiner finds Detampel, Jr. and Rosenberg collectively teach all limitations of claim 7. Ans. 6-10; see also Ans. 26-28. Appellants present the same principal arguments as presented for claim 40, arguing that Rosenberg does not teach the recited multipoint control unit, and arguing that Rosenberg, col. 5-6, is strictly related to two- party calling. See App. Br. 14-17; see also Reply Br. 10-12. For reasons discussed above with respect to claim 40, we agree with the Examiner that Rosenberg’s proxy server teaches the recited multipoint control unit. We again note that Rosenberg, col. 5-6, describes Internet telephony signaling which may be used to invite new participants to a call (second party, or third or later parties). See Ans. 19-20 (citing Rosenberg, col. 5, ll. 33-40). We, therefore, sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 7, as well claims 3 and 12, which are not argued separately. Appeal 2011-010811 Application 10/697,810 6 THE OBVIOUSNESS REJECTION OF CLAIMS 4 AND 5 OVER DETAMPEL, JR., ROSENBERG, AND THOMAS Claims 4 and 5 depend from claim 7. Appellants argue Thomas does not overcome deficiencies of Detampel, Jr. and Rosenberg. App. Br. 17. For reasons discussed above with respect to claim 7, we need not address whether Thomas overcomes the purported deficiencies of Detampel, Jr. and Rosenberg. We, therefore, sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 4 and 5. THE OBVIOUSNESS REJECTION OF CLAIMS 8-10 OVER DETAMPEL, JR., ROSENBERG, AND JURKEVICS Claims 8-10 depend from claim 7. Appellants argue Jurkevics does not overcome deficiencies of Detampel, Jr. and Rosenberg. App. Br. 18. For reasons discussed above with respect to claim 7, we need not address whether Jurkevics overcomes the purported deficiencies of Detampel, Jr. and Rosenberg. We, therefore, sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 8-10. THE OBVIOUSNESS REJECTION OF CLAIMS 13-15 OVER DETAMPEL, JR., ROSENBERG, AND SEMAAN Claims 13-15 depend from claim 7. Appellants argue Semaan does not overcome deficiencies of Detampel, Jr. and Rosenberg. App. Br. 18. For reasons discussed above with respect to claim 7, we need not address whether Semaan overcomes the purported deficiencies of Detampel, Jr. and Rosenberg. Appeal 2011-010811 Application 10/697,810 7 We, therefore, sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 13-15. DECISION The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 3-5, 7-10, 12-15, and 40 is 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)(1). AFFIRMED msc