Ex Parte Dinicola et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardOct 23, 201411381780 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 23, 2014) Copy Citation 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. 11/381,780 05/05/2006 Brian K. Dinicola AVYA.77US01 4943 109149 7590 10/24/2014 Cochran Freund & Young/ AVAYA, Inc. 2026 Caribou Drive Suite 201 Fort Collins, CO 80525 EXAMINER CRUTCHFIELD, CHRISTOPHER M ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2466 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 10/24/2014 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 BRIAN K. DINICOLA and DAVID S. MOHLER ____________________ Appeal 2012-007461 Application 11/381,780 Technology Center 2400 ____________________ Before MICHAEL J. STRAUSS, JOHN A. EVANS, and WILLIAM M. FINK, Administrative Patent Judges. FINK, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellants 1 seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the Examiner’s final rejection of claims 1, 3– 9, 11–16, 20–22, 26, and 27. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We REVERSE. STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants’ Invention Appellants’ invention relates to signal processing in a telecommunications network. (Abstract.) 2 Specifically, Appellants claim 1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Avaya, Inc. (App. Br. 3.) Appeal 2012-007461 Application 11/381,780 2 systems and methods for offloading centralized signal processing tasks from data processing systems in a network to an endpoint having spare resources available to perform the task. (Spec. ¶ 1.) Claims on Appeal Claims 1, 9, 16, and 22 are the independent claims on appeal. Claim 1 is illustrative of Appellants’ invention and is reproduced below with disputed limitations emphasized: 1. A telecommunications endpoint comprising: a receiver for receiving, from a telecommunications network, a first series of data samples that represent a first acoustic signal; a memory for buffering the first series of data samples; and a processor for: i) determining a resource availability of a predetermined resource at the telecommunications endpoint, and ii) generating a second series of data samples, based on signal content of the data samples in the first series; wherein the telecommunications endpoint, based on the resource availability of the predetermined resource, offloads 2 Our decision refers to Appellants’ Appeal Brief filed August 11, 2011 (“App. Br.”); the Examiner’s Answer mailed December 7, 2011 (“Ans.”); Appellants’ Reply Brief filed February 7, 2012; Final Office Action mailed January 24, 2011 (“Final Act.”); and the original Specification filed May 5, 2006 (“Spec.”). Appeal 2012-007461 Application 11/381,780 3 the generation of the second series of data samples from a data- processing system in the telecommunications network. Evidence Considered Chen US 6,275,536 B1 Aug. 14, 2001 Wong US 2002/0007357 A1 Jan. 17, 2002 Fenton US 6,445,697 B1 Sept. 3, 2002 Kwan US 2003/0112796 A1 June 19, 2003 Celi US 2006/0233163 A1 Oct. 19, 2006 Examiner’s Rejections Claims 1, 7–9, and 15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Celi and Fenton. (Ans. 5–14.) Claims 3, 4, 11, and 12 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Celi, Fenton, and Wong. (Ans. 14–17.) Claims 5 and 13 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Celi, Fenton, and Chen. (Ans. 18–19.) Claims 6 and 14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Celi, Fenton, Chen, and Kwan. (Ans. 19–20.) Claims 16, 21, 22, and 27 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Celi, Fenton, Wong, and Kwan. (Ans. 20–33.) Claims 20 and 26 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Celi, Fenton, Wong, Kwan, and Chen. (Ans. 33–35.) Issue on Appeal Based on Appellants’ arguments, the issue on appeal is whether Chen teaches a “telecommunications endpoint, based on the resource availability of the predetermined resource, offload[ing] the generation of the second Appeal 2012-007461 Application 11/381,780 4 series of data samples from a data-processing system in the telecommunications network,” as required by claim 1 (App. Br. 11–18.) ANALYSIS With respect to Appellants’ independent claim 1, the Examiner relies on the combination of Celi and Fenton. (Ans. 5–14.) Specifically, the Examiner relies on Celi’s description of an endpoint that offloads processing of audio to an RTP audio processor in the network, as teaching the recited “telecommunication endpoint . . . offload[ing] the generation of the second series of data samples from a data-processing system in the telecommunications network.” (Ans. 6–7 (citing Celi ¶¶ 17–24, 37–40).) Appellants dispute the Examiner’s factual finding. Specifically, Appellants argue that the endpoints in Celi offload processing tasks to the RTP audio processor 115 in the network, whereas the claimed invention offloads tasks to the endpoints to take advantage of underutilized resources at the endpoints. (App. Br. 12–13.) According to Appellants, nothing in Celi suggests the reverse—offloading from the RTP audio processor to the endpoint—as the claims require. (Id. at 15.) On the record before us, we are constrained to agree with Appellants. In finding that Celi discloses the required offloading, the Examiner finds if the endpoint has sufficient resources to perform processing that it could otherwise offload to an RTP audio processor, it is “offloading” processing that otherwise would have to be performed by the RTP audio processor. (Ans. 38–39.) However, this interpretation is too broad. As Appellants note, the plain meaning of the disputed term “offloads . . . from a data- processing system” requires offloading tasks performed by a centralized Appeal 2012-007461 Application 11/381,780 5 data-processing system to a telecommunications endpoint. According to the Specification, the direction of offloading is important to take advantage of “underutilized” endpoint processing resources. (Spec. ¶ 52.) We agree with Appellants that an endpoint choosing not to offload tasks to a central data- processing system is not the same as a central-data processing system offloading to the endpoint. (Reply Br. 20 (“[T]he non-action of ‘not offloading’ is not the same as the action of offloading.”).) The Examiner also finds the offloading in Celi’s system is dynamic and bidirectional, suggesting that, in some situations, there may be offloading in the direction of the endpoint: It is this dynamic offloading that creates the situation of bi- directional offloading where both the telecommunications endpoint and the data processing system offload processing both to and from the opposing device when they share burden of processing based on the load of the telecommunications endpoint. (Ans. 41.) Although we agree Celi describes “dynamic offloading,” this appears to mean that the offloading to the RTP audio processor can occur “whenever available resources of either endpoint become scarce.” (Celi ¶ 40 (emphasis added).) We do not, however, find any teaching or suggestion the offloading is “bi-directional” such that offloading from the RTP audio processor to the endpoint is performed as required by the claims, and there is no reasoned basis articulated explaining why such offloading would be obvious in view of Celi’s disclosure. See KSR Intern. Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007) (citing In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006)). Appeal 2012-007461 Application 11/381,780 6 On this record, Appellants have persuaded us the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1. Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of independent claim 1. Independent claims 9, 16, and 22 include similar limitations directed to the offloading from a data-processing system; therefore, for the same reasons, we do not sustain the rejections of independent claims 9, 16, and 22 as, in the case of the latter two claims, the Examiner’s applications of the Wong and Kwan references also fail to cure the deficiency in the base rejections addressed supra. With respect to dependent claims 3–8, 11–15, 20, 21, 26, and 27, we do not sustain the rejections of these claims as well as, in the case of claims 5, 6, 13, 14, 20, and 26, the Examiner’s applications of the Chen reference also fails to cure the deficiency in the base rejections addressed supra. DECISION We reverse the Examiner’s final rejection of claims 1, 3–9, 11–16, 20–22, 26, and 27. REVERSED kis Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation