11935933 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 27, 2015)

Ex Parte Davidson et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardAug 27, 2015

11935933 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 27, 2015)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE 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 APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO. 11/935,933 11/06/2007 Charles Lewis Davidson AVYA.33US01 8866 109149 7590 08/27/2015 Cochran Freund & Young/ AVAYA, Inc. 2026 Caribou Drive Suite 201 Fort Collins, CO 80525 EXAMINER KASSIM, KHALED M ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2468 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 08/27/2015 PAPER 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. PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________________ Ex parte CHARLES LEWIS DAVIDSON, JEFFREY MEIS, THORSTEN FREDRIK OHRSTROM SANDGREN, MARK DANIEL RAJCOK, SUJESHA SUDEVAN SUDEVALAYAM, and AJAY JAGDISH TALREJA ____________________ Appeal 2013-006910 Application 11/935,933 Technology Center 2400 ____________________ Before: MICHAEL J. STRAUSS, TERRENCE W. McMILLIN, and ADAM J. PYONIN, Administrative Patent Judges. PYONIN, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the final rejection of claims 1–20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM. Appeal 2013-006910 Application 11/935,933 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Introduction Appellants’ disclosure “relates to telecommunications in general, and, more particularly, to a media gateway exchanging resource-related information with a media gateway controller.” Spec. ¶ 1. Claims 1, 8, and 14 are independent. Claim 1 is reproduced below with emphases added: 1. A method comprising: transmitting, from a media gateway controller to a first media gateway, i) a first upper threshold for a predetermined resource and ii) a resource request for a first call; receiving, from the first media gateway, a first notification that a first result exceeds the first upper threshold, the first result being based on a first calculation of resource utilization with respect to the predetermined resource at the first media gateway; and selecting one of i) the first media gateway and ii) a second media gateway to handle the first call, the selected media gateway being based on the first notification. The Examiner’s Rejection Claims 1–20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Vikberg et al. (US 2004/0114570 A1; published June 17, 2004), hereinafter “Vikberg.” Final Act. 3. ISSUES Appellants’ arguments present us with the following issues: A. Did the Examiner err in rejecting independent claim 1, because Vikberg does not teach a “threshold” as claimed? Br. 10. B. Did the Examiner err in rejecting independent claim 1, because Vikberg does not teach the “notification” as claimed? Br. 13. Appeal 2013-006910 Application 11/935,933 3 ANALYSIS We adopt the Examiner’s findings and conclusions (see Final Act. 2– 9, Ans. 2–6) as our own, and we add the following primarily for emphasis. A. Threshold Appellants argue the Examiner erred by “mischaracterize[ing] the bandwidth calculations and maximums and minimums of Vikberg into a threshold” as recited by independent claim 1. Br. 10. Particularly, Appellants contend the claimed “threshold is a value, which if exceeded the Media Gateway will inform the Media Gateway Controller. Contrary to this, . . . Vikberg at no time determines whether a Media Gateway has exceeded a limit in the absence of the bandwidth of a waiting call.” Id. at 11. We are not persuaded the Examiner erred. The Examiner finds the definition of threshold put forward by Appellants, a “‘level, point, or value above which something is true or will take place and below which it is not or will not,’ . . . includes a maximum bandwidth as that described in Paragraphs [0148-149]” of Vikberg. Ans. 2, see also Br. 10. We agree, because Vikberg describes the “maximum bandwidth” is compared to the “available bandwidth,” and used to determine which gateway to use for call routing. See Vikberg Fig. 15, ¶¶148–149. Thus, the “maximum bandwidth” of Vikberg is the level, point, or value above which a particular call route may be chosen. Appellants further argue the “need for all the determinations of Vikberg are removed” in claim 1, but do not persuasively show how the claim limitations preclude Vikberg’s determination. Br. 13, see also Ans. 3. Accordingly, we are not persuaded by Appellants’ arguments that the Appeal 2013-006910 Application 11/935,933 4 Examiner erred in finding the “upper threshold” limitation of claim 1 encompasses the “maximum bandwidth” teachings of Vikberg. See Final Act. 3. B. Notification The Examiner cites to Vikberg’s disclosure of “notifying the Media Control part 1840 that the jitter buffer measurements are exceeded” for teaching a “first notification” as recited in claim 1. Final Act. 4. Appellants argue this is in error, because “jitter buffer calculations are in no way a threshold” and “[j]itter buffer errors are reported for conditions outside of normal operating ranges, and therefore jitter buffer techniques would be generally inapplicable to the Applicant's claims directed at notifying before gateway media resource exhaustion.” Br. 14. Appellants’ arguments are unpersuasive of error because they fail to address the Examiner’s findings. Appellants compare the jitter buffer calculations to the claimed threshold; however, here the Examiner finds: it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to apply similar threshold and maximum exceeding features with notification, as applied in the jitter buffer calculations for call routing and rerouting of Vikberg, to the use of bandwidth data structure for call routing and rerouting of Vikberg. Final Act. 4. That is, the Examiner finds an artisan of ordinary skill would modify Vikberg’s upper threshold (i.e., maximum bandwidth) based call routing system, as discussed above, with a notification feature such as used in Vikberg’s jitter buffer measurement system. See Ans. 4–5 (citing Vikberg ¶¶ 172–177). Appellants have not persuaded us that such modification was “uniquely challenging or difficult for one of ordinary skill in the art.” Appeal 2013-006910 Application 11/935,933 5 Leapfrog Enters., Inc. v. Fisher-Price, Inc., 485 F.3d 1157, 1162 (Fed. Cir. 2007). Thus, we do not find error in the Examiner's conclusion that claim 1 is obvious in view of Vikberg. CONCLUSION We are not persuaded the Examiner erred in finding Vikberg teaches or suggests the threshold and notification limitations of claim 1. For similar reasons, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in finding Vikberg teaches or suggests the threshold limitations of independent claim 14 and dependent claims 2–4 and 12. See Br. 14, 15. Claims 5–11 and 13–20 are not argued separately, thus we sustain the rejection of these claims for the same reasons. See Br. 13–15. Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of claims 1–20. See 37 C.F.R. §41.37(c)(1)(iv); see, also, In re Lovin, 652 F.3d 1349, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2011). DECISION We affirm the Examiner's 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 tj