Ex Parte Busey

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jul 31, 2006

09187895 (B.P.A.I. Jul. 31, 2006)

The opinion in support of the decision being entered today was not written for publication and is not
binding precedent of the Board.

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte ANDREW T. BUSEY
____________

Appeal No. 2006-1496
Application No. 09/187,895
____________

ON BRIEF
____________

Before HAIRSTON, BARRY, and SAADAT, Administrative Patent Judges.

HAIRSTON, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

This is an appeal from the final rejection of claims 29 through 70.
The disclosed invention relates to a method and system for coordinating
communication in a plurality of media in an information processing system. Each of a
plurality of media servers communicates directly with a user, and not through other of the
media servers. In response to control communications between one of the media servers
and the user node, the noted one media server controls the communication between the
user node and the other media servers to thereby coordinate presentation of the plurality
of media communications at the user node.

Appeal No. 2006-1496
Application 09/187,895

Claim 29 is illustrative of the claimed invention, and it reads as follows:
29. A method for coordinating a plurality of communications in a plurality of
media in an information processing system, comprising;

communicating between a user node and each of a plurality of media servers
directly and not through other of said media servers, wherein each of the media servers
communicates in a different one of the plurality of the media; and

in response to control communication between one of the media servers and the
user node, the one media server controlling the communicating between the user node
and the plurality of the media servers to coordinate presentation of communications in the
plurality of the media at the user node.

The references relied on by the examiner are:
Bieselin et al. (Bieselin) 5,668,863 Sept. 16, 1997
Tang et al. (Tang) 5,793,365 Aug. 11, 1998
Rekimoto 5,956,038 Sept. 21, 1999
(filed July 11, 1996)

Claims 29 through 31, 33 through 46, 48 through 61 and 63 through 70 stand
rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Tang in view of Bieselin.
Claims 32, 47 and 62 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Tang in view of Bieselin and Rekimoto.
Reference is made to the briefs and the answer for the respective positions of the
appellant and the examiner.
OPINION
We have carefully considered the entire record before us, and we will reverse the
obviousness rejections of claims 29 through 70.
Tang discloses several media servers 81 and 83 that communicate with a user 14
via a communications server 80 (Figure 11; column 14, lines 40 through 50).

2
Appeal No. 2006-1496
Application 09/187,895

We agree with the examiner’s finding (answer, page 4) that “[s]ince item 80 is not
technically a media server, a user can communicate with each of media servers 81 and 83
directly (i.e. separately, without overlap) to the extent shown via directional arrows
within Figure 11 . . . .” We additionally agree with the examiner’s finding (answer, page
4) that “Tang does not specifically teach a media server controlling the communicating
between the user node and the media servers.”
Bieselin describes an audio conferencing system server 100 used in a
teleconferencing system (Figure 1). The server includes a system controller 110 that
receives voice signals generated by conference participants during the teleconference,
and records voice data signals representative of the voice signals in a data storage
subsystem 125 (column 3, lines 56 through 64).
Since the server 100 controls communication between a user and audio data, the
examiner contends (answer, page 4) “[i]t would have been obvious to one of ordinary
skill in the art at the time of the invention to apply Bieselin Figure 1 item 100, to Tang’s
media servers as indicated in Tang Figure 11, providing Tang the benefit of integrating
communication along with a particular media server so as to free up communication
resources elsewhere . . . .”
Appellant agrees with the examiner that the servers 81 through 87 in Tang are
media servers, that the server 100 is not a media server, and that neither of the media
servers 81 through 87 controls the communicating between all of the servers and the user
node (brief, page 7). With respect to Bieselin, the appellant argues (brief, page 8) that
“Bieselin et al. merely disclose the structure and function of an audioconferencing system
3
Appeal No. 2006-1496
Application 09/187,895

server (100 in Fig. 1) that records and plays back teleconference data (col. 3, lines 60-
67),” and that “[n]o other server is disclosed by Bieselin et al.” Appellant additionally
argues (brief, page 8) that Bieselin neither teaches nor would have suggested to one of
ordinary skill in the art “one media server controlling communicating between a user and
other media servers, or of coordinating presentation of communications in a plurality of
media at a user node.”
We agree with the appellant that Bieselin merely discloses “an audio conferencing
system server” that does not perform the specifically claimed function of “controlling the
communicating between the user node and the plurality of the media servers to
coordinate presentation of communications in the plurality of the media at the user node”
(brief, page 8). Thus, the obviousness rejection of claims 29 through 31, 33 through 46,
48 through 61 and 63 through 70 is reversed.
The obviousness rejection of claims 32, 47 and 62 is reversed because the Internet
teachings of Rekimoto do not cure the noted shortcoming in the teachings of Tang and
Bieselin.

4
Appeal No. 2006-1496
Application 09/187,895

DECISION
The decision of the examiner rejecting claims 29 through 70 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) is reversed.
REVERSED

KENNETH W. HAIRSTON )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
LANCE LEONARD BARRY ) APPEALS AND
Administrative Patent Judge ) INTERFERENCES
)
)
)
MAHSHID D. SAADAT )
Administrative Patent Judge )

KWH:pgc
5
Appeal No. 2006-1496
Application 09/187,895

Avaya Inc.
307 Middletown-Lincroft Road
Room 1N-391
Lincroft, NJ 07738

6