Ex Parte Goodknight

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Mar 31, 2010

09773393 (B.P.A.I. Mar. 31, 2010)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte GREGORY WARREN GOODKNIGHT
____________

Appeal 2009-001200
Application 09/773,393
Technology Center 2400
____________

Decided: March 31, 2010
____________

Before KENNETH W. HAIRSTON, MARC S. HOFF
and KARL D. EASTHOM, Administrative Patent Judges.
HAIRSTON, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. §§ 6(b) and 134 from the final
rejection of claims 221 to 31.
The disclosed invention relates to a network device and method in
which a network device determines whether another device is a packet

1 Claims 23 to 26 improperly depend from cancelled claim 1.
Appeal 2009-001200
Application 09/773,393

2
device that can receive packet data over a public switched telephone network
via a signal received from the other device. If the network device
determines from the received signal that the other device is a packet device
that can receive packet data, then the network device sends the packet data
stream to the other device. On the other hand, if the network device
determines from the received signal that the other device is not a packet
device and cannot receive packet data, then the network device will send an
altered data stream to the other device (Figs 2-4; Spec. 2-7).
Claim 22 is representative of the claims on appeal, and it reads as
follows:
22. A network device, comprising:
a converter to receive a packet data stream intended for a packet
domain and to convert the packet data stream into an altered data stream
intended for transmission through a public switched telephone network; and
a controller to:
establish a connection through the public switched telephone network
with at least one other network device using the altered data stream;
send signals through the converter in the altered data stream
identifying the network device as a packet device that can receive packet
data;
determine, using signals received from one of the other network
devices, whether the other network device is a packet device that can receive
packet data;
Appeal 2009-001200
Application 09/773,393

3
send the packet data stream to the other network device, if the
network device determines that the other network device is a packet device
that can receive packet data; and
send the altered data stream to the other network device, if the
network device determines that the other network device is not a packet
device and cannot receive packet data.
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Series V: Data Communication Over the Telephone Network, ITU-T V.8bis,
Sept. 25, 1998, pp. 1-43.
The Examiner rejected claims 22 to 31 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)
based upon the teachings of the ITU-T V.8bis publication.
The Examiner contends (Final Rej. 2-5) that the ITU-T V.8bis
publication describes all of the device limitations and method steps set forth
in the claims on appeal. In response, Appellant argues (App. Br. 6-8) that:
Appendix 1 in the publication describes “switching between normal voice
telephony and modem-based communications;” the modem converts data to
modem tones for transmission across the PSTN as “an altered data stream;”
and the sending of a packet data stream or an altered data stream in response
to a determination of whether the other device is a device that can receive
packet data is not taught by the publication.
The ITU-T V.8bis publication clearly explains that it is concerned
with: telephony mode over the PSTN (sections 5, and 6.1); voice calls over
the PSTN (sections 9.2.1, 10.1, and Appendix 1.1-1.3); and switching from
voice telephony mode to a data mode (Appendix 1.5, 1.6, and 1.9). Thus,
Appeal 2009-001200
Application 09/773,393

4
we agree with Appellant’s argument (Reply Br. 3) that “nowhere in the ITU-
T Recommendation does it disclose switching to a mode where data is
transmitted as a packet data stream,” (i.e., upon a determination that the
other network device is a packet device that can receive packet data), as
claim 22 requires.
In summary, the anticipation rejection of claims 22 to 31 is reversed
because each and every limitation in the claims is not found either expressly
or inherently in the cited ITU-T V.8bis publication. In re Crish, 393 F.3d
1253, 1256 (Fed. Cir. 2004).
The decision of the Examiner is reversed.

REVERSED

KIS

MARGER JOHNSON & MCCOLLOM, P.C.
210 SW MORRISON STREET, SUITE 400
PORTLAND, OR 97204