Ex Parte Chang

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 7, 2014

11078911 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 7, 2014)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte WEN-YANG CHANG
____________________

Appeal 2011-010934
Application 11/078,911
Technology Center 2400
____________________

Before EDWARD A. BROWN, MICHAEL L. HOELTER, and
LYNNE H. BROWNE, Administrative Patent Judges.

BROWN, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal 2011-010934
Application 11/078,911

2

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Wen-Yang Chang (Appellant) appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the
Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Gosewehr (US 2003/0176165 A1; pub. Sep. 18, 2003) and
Tripathi (US 6,992,974 B1; iss. Jan. 31, 2006). App. Br. 10. We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.

CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Claims 1, 11, and 19 are the independent claims on appeal. Claim 1 is
illustrative of the claimed subject matter and reads:
1. A telecommunication device capable of
handling call connections between calling devices and
called devices, said telecommunication device
comprising:
a main processing unit capable of executing a
plurality of client applications, wherein each of said
client applications is associated with one of said call
connections; and
a first call application node capable of executing a
first primary server application, wherein the first primary
server application comprises a first proxy object that is
associated with an upgrade adaptor group within the
telecommunications device and wherein said first proxy
object provides services to said plurality of client
applications in response to requests from said plurality of
client applications.

ANALYSIS
Regarding claim 1, the Examiner found that Gosewehr teaches a
telecommunication device comprising an “upgrade adaptor group,” that is, a group
Appeal 2011-010934
Application 11/078,911

3

of applications (CAN1-CAN3 software) that handles client requests and that may
be upgraded. Ans. 3-4, 9. The Examiner also found that Gosewehr’s CAN1-
CAN3 software provides services to a plurality of client applications in response to
requests from them. Id. at 3-4. The Examiner found that Gosewehr does not teach
a “proxy object,” but found that Tripathi teaches a device comprising a “proxy
object” that is associated with a server and provides services to a plurality of client
applications in response to requests from the client applications. Id. at 4 (citing to
Tripathi, col. 4, l. 55 – col. 5, l. 25 and noting that a primary proxy server may
service calls from a caller to a callee). The Examiner concluded that it would have
been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize a proxy as taught by
Tripathi in addition to the CAN nodes taught by Gosewehr. Id.
In response, Appellant contends that the Examiner’s finding that “CAN1-
CAN3 software may be upgraded within the device” in Gosewehr does not provide
a teaching or suggestion of an “upgrade adaptor group,” as claimed. App. Br. 13.
However, Appellant does not contend that the claimed “upgrade adaptor group”
has any particular meaning. In this regard, Appellant does not contend that the
Specification provides a specific definition of “upgrade adaptor group,” or that it
contains disclosure that precludes the Examiner's construction. See In re Paulsen,
30 F.3d 1475, 1480 (Fed. Cir. 1994); In re Bigio, 381 F.3d 1320, 1325 (Fed Cir.
2004). In addition, Appellant does not provide any evidence to show that “upgrade
adaptor group” has a particular known meaning in the art that distinguishes this
recitation from the disclosure in Gosewehr relied on by the Examiner.
Accordingly, Appellant does not provide any persuasive argument or evidence to
show that the Examiner’s interpretation of “upgrade adaptor group” is
unreasonable, and that Gosewehr fails to meet this limitation.
Appeal 2011-010934
Application 11/078,911

4

Appellant also contends that Tripathi discloses a “proxy server” instead of a
“proxy object” and one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that a proxy
server is not the same as a proxy object. App. Br. 13; Reply Br. 2-3. However,
Appellant does not contend that “proxy object” has any particular meaning. While
Appellant’s application discloses the term “proxy object,” Appellant does not
direct us to a specific definition of “proxy object” therein, or to any disclosure
therein that precludes the Examiner’s determination that disclosure of a proxy
server in Tripathi teaches the claimed “proxy object.” In addition, Appellant does
not provide any evidence to show that “proxy object” has any particular known
meaning in the art that distinguishes this term from the disclosure in Tripathi relied
on by the Examiner. Accordingly, Appellant does not provide any persuasive
argument or evidence to show that the disclosure of a proxy server in Tripathi
would not be recognized by one of ordinary skill in the art as teaching the claimed
“proxy object.”
Finally, Appellant contends that the proxy server of Tripathi does not act as
a proxy object that provides services to a plurality of client applications in response
to requests from the plurality of client applications. App. Br. 13-14. Appellant
also contends that Tripathi instead teaches only a single caller and single receiver
coupled to a proxy server. Id. at 13. We understand Appellant’s essential
contention is that Tripathi’s proxy server, as arranged in the network shown in
Figure 2, does not provide services to a plurality of client applications. However,
the Examiner’s rejection is based on the combined teachings of Gosewehr and
Tripathi. Ans. 4. The Examiner found that Gosewehr discloses CAN1-CAN3
software that provides services to a plurality of client applications in response to
requests from said plurality of client applications, and did not rely on Tripathi for
this teaching. Id. at 3-4. Appellant also does not provide any persuasive argument
Appeal 2011-010934
Application 11/078,911

5

or evidence to show that the combination of Gosewehr’s teachings pertaining to
CAN nodes and Tripathi’s teachings pertaining to a proxy relied on by the
Examiner would not provide services to a plurality of client applications as recited
in claim 1.
Thus, we sustain the obviousness rejection of claim 1, and its dependent
claims 2-10, over Gosewehr and Tripathi.
Appellant relies on the arguments discussed supra in regard to claim 1 for
patentability of claim 11. App. Br. 14; Reply Br. 3. As we find no deficiency in
the rejection of claim 1, we sustain the rejection of claim 11 and its dependent
claims 12-18 for reasons similar to those discussed supra regarding claim 1.
Appellant also relies on the arguments discussed supra in regard to claim 1
for the patentability of claim 19. App. Br. 14; Reply Br. 3. For reasons similar to
those discussed supra regarding claim 1, we also find these arguments
unpersuasive for claim 19.
Additionally, Appellant recites additional limitations of claim 19 and asserts
that the cited prior art references do not disclose these limitations. App. Br. 14.
However, these contentions do not address the Examiner’s specific findings and
reasoning for claim 19. See Ans. 6-8. Merely reciting the language of a claim and
asserting that the cited prior art references do not disclose each claim limitation is
insufficient. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(vii) (“A statement which merely points out
what a claim recites will not be considered an argument for separate patentability
of the claim.”); see also In re Lovin, 652 F.3d 1349, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2011).
Accordingly, these contentions are not persuasive. Thus, we sustain the rejection
of claim 19 and its dependent claim 20.

Appeal 2011-010934
Application 11/078,911

6

DECISION
We AFFIRM the rejection of claims 1-20.
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).

AFFIRMED

llw