Ex Parte Hans et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardMay 27, 201611323470 (P.T.A.B. May. 27, 2016) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 111323,470 12/29/2005 31817 7590 06/01/2016 SCHWABE, WILLIAMSON & WYATT, P.C. c/o CPA GLOBAL 900 2nd A venue South, Suite 600 MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55402 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Martin Hans 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 ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO. 111027-195814 1587 EXAMINER PEREZ GUTIERREZ, RAFAEL ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2642 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 06/01/2016 ELECTRONIC 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. Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the following e-mail address( es): IPDocketing@SCHWABE.com intelpatent@schwabe.com inteldocs _ docketing@cpaglobal.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte MARTIN HANS, HOLGER SCHMIDT, and NORBERT SCHWAGMANN Appeal2014-005335 Application 11/323,470 1 Technology Center 2600 Before JEAN R. HOMERE, JOSEPH P. LENTIVECH, and SHARON PENICK, Administrative Patent Judges. PENICK, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's Final Rejection of claims 18-20, 23-36, 38, 39, and 42--47. Claims 1-17, 21, 22, 37, 40, and 41 were cancelled. (Appeal Br. 2.) We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b)(l). We affirm. Invention Appellants' invention relates to management of communication rights for communications via a plurality of different communication media in a 1 Appellants identify Infineon Technologies AG as the real party in interest. (Appeal Br. 2.) Appeal2014-005335 Application 11/323,470 telecommunication conference between telecommunications devices. (Spec. 1 11. 11-15) At least one communication media group is formed by grouping a plurality of communication media. Communication rights for the communications devices are managed in the course of the telecommunication conference using a control communication protocol for controlling a real-time data transmission communication protocol. (Id. at 6 1. 32-7 1. 8) Representative Claim Claim 18, reproduced below with key limitations emphasized) is representative: 18. A method for managing a plurality of communication rights of respective telecommunication devices m a telecommunication conference, the method comprising: grouping a plurality of communication media to form at least one communication media group using an RTCP real-time transport control protocol for controlling an RTP real-time transport protocol, the communication media group being dynamically defined during the conference, wherein the at least one communication media group comprises at least two communication media; and managing the plurality of communication rights of respective telecommunication devices during the telecommunication conference using the RTCP real-time transport control protocol for controlling the RTP real-time transport protocol, the communication rights for the respective communication media group being dynamically defined during the conference, wherein a communication right is allocated for the at least one communication media group and thus for a plurality of communication media streams of the plurality of communication media included m the at least one communication media group. 2 Appeal2014-005335 Application 11/323,470 Rejections The Examiner rejects claims 18-20, 23-36, 38, 39, and 42--47 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Maggenti et al. (US 2002/0077136 Al, published June 20, 2002) (hereinafter "Maggenti"), Black (US 2004/0057449 Al, published Mar. 25, 2004), and Moyano et al. (US 7187671 B2, issued Mar. 6, 2007) (hereinafter "Moyano"). (Final Action 3- 23.) Issues Did the Examiner err in finding that the combination of Maggenti, Black, and Moyano teaches or suggests a "communications media group" as recited in claim 18? Did the Examiner err in finding that the combination of Maggenti, Black, and Moyano teaches or suggests the use ofRTCP and RTP protocols in grouping a plurality of communication media and in managing the plurality of communications rights of telecommunications devices, as recited in claim 18? Did the Examiner err in applying Maggenti, Black, and Moyano in an obviousness rejection because these references are not analogous art? ANALYSIS "communications media group" The Examiner finds Maggenti teaches grouping a plurality of communications rights in a "group or floor" through a user server agent. (Final Action 3.) Appellants argue that while Maggenti teaches "dynamic communication rights management of net (or group) members (or devices) by the communication manager" in Maggenti, "the media type used in a session is statically set beforehand and advertised to a new group participant 3 Appeal2014-005335 Application 11/323,470 as soon as he enters the group." (Appeal Br. 11-12.) Thus, Appellants argue, "Maggenti does not disclose ... the idea of grouping a plurality of communication media in order to manage communication media groups" and therefore "the question of static or dynamic management of communication media groups is not addressed by Maggenti." (Id. at 12.) The disputed claim limitation, however, with respect to communication media groups, is that at least one "communication media group [is] dynamically defined during the conference." While the claim does include limitations directed to the management of communication rights for telecommunication devices, the claim does not relate to "static or dynamic management of communications media groups," only to the management of communication rights of devices over one or more communications media group. (Claim 18.) Thus this argument is not commensurate in scope with the claim limitations. The Examiner finds the grouping of a plurality of communication media into one communication media group to be taught by Maggenti, including in its disclosure that a media traffic channel is comprised of real- time point-to-multi-point voice and/or data broadcasts. (Final Action 3, citing Maggenti i-f 54.) Generally, the transmission privilege ("floor control") granted to a device in Maggenti allows the member with privilege to transmit to all other members in any media (e.g. with audio, visual or other data). (Maggenti i-fi-110-12, 43.) Appellants argue that in Maggenti the media types used (and thus those grouped in the transmission privilege) are determined before a new group participant enters the group. We agree with the Examiner that the communication rights are grouped for floor control. Even if, as Appellants 4 Appeal2014-005335 Application 11/323,470 argue, this the grouping occurs only at initiation of the conference, we find that the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim term "dynamically defined during the conference" includes definition at the initiation of the conference. As only one group is required according to the disputed limitation, Maggenti's group formed of media types for which floor control is granted teaches or suggests the disputed limitation. Thus, we agree with the Examiner that the prior art combination teaches or suggests the disputed limitation. "using an RTCP real-time transport control protocol for controlling an RTP real-time transport protocol" Appellants argue that none of the references discloses the use of RTCP and RTP protocols as recited in claim 18. (Appeal Br. 17-20.) Appellants argue that, while Maggenti teaches using User Datagram Protocol (UDP) or Transmission Control Protocol (TCP) for performing call set up and call control, no use ofRTP and RTCP is disclosed. (Id. at 18.) We agree that, as the Examiner finds, Black teaches using R TP for distributing streaming real time media. (Final Action 4 (citing Black i-f 43.)) We also agree with the Examiner's finding that Moyano teaches the use of R TP and R TCP in a multimedia data network using on a TCP /IP network for transport. (Final Action 5 (citing Moyano 15:22-29.)) We consequently agree with the Examiner that the combination of this prior art teaches or suggests the use of RTP for distributing the media, and the use of RTCP for set up and call control, including the claimed grouping of communications media and managing of communications rights. Additionally, we note that Appellants discuss in the Specification the prior art use of R TP for transmitting payload data in a telecommunications 5 Appeal2014-005335 Application 11/323,470 conference, and the use of R TCP for signaling (event notification, communication right allocation) in such systems. (Spec. 3 11. 25-35, 4 11. 8- 15, 5 1. 31---6. 1. 4.) Thus, as the Examiner finds, the combination of Maggenti, Black, and Moyano teaches or suggests the use ofRTCP for controlling the RTP transmissions, and the use of R TP transmissions. Analogousness of Prior Art Used Appellants argue that "the problems addressed by independent claim 18 are also completely outside the scope of the applied references." (Appeal Br. 20.) The Appellants argue that the invention provides benefits which are not present in the prior art. (Id. 20-24.) We do not find this argument persuasive. The Supreme Court has stated that it is "error ... to foreclose [an obviousness] reasoning by holding that courts and patent examiners should look only to the problem the [applicant] was trying to solve." KSR Int'! Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 420 (2007). We understand Appellants to be arguing that the prior art is not analogous, and cannot thus form a proper basis for an obviousness rejection, we find the prior art to be analogous. The prior art addressing different problems than a claimed invention, without more, does not necessarily render the art non-analogous for purposes of establishing obviousness: Two separate tests define the scope of analogous prior art: (1) whether the art is from the same field of endeavor, regardless of the problem addressed and, (2) if the reference is not within the field of the inventor's endeavor, whether the reference still is reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor is involved. 6 Appeal2014-005335 Application 11/323,470 In re Bigio, 381 F.3d 1320, 1325 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Maggenti, Black, and Moyano are directed to the operations of a group communication network. (Maggenti Abstract; Black Abstract; Moyano Abstract.) Appellants' invention is in the same field. (Spec. 1, 11. 10-15.) Therefore, we find that Maggenti, Black, and Moyano each are from the same field of endeavor as Appellants' invention and thus, and are analogous prior art. Accordingly, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in finding the combination of Maggenti, Black, and Moyano teaches or suggests the limitations as recited in independent claim 18 and commensurately recited in independent claims 32, 34, 38, and 47. Claims 19, 20, 23-31, 33, 35, 36, 39, and 42--46 were not separately argued and thus, these claims fall with their respective independent claims. Therefore, we sustain the rejection of claims 18-20, 23-36, 38, 39, and 42--47 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) for obviousness over Maggenti, Black, and Moyano. DECISION We affirm the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 18-20, 23-36, 38, 39, and 42--47 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Maggenti, Black, and Moyano. Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l )(iv), no time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended. AFFIRMED 7 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation