Ex Parte Hiller et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jan 26, 2011

10334090 (B.P.A.I. Jan. 26, 2011)

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.
10/334,090 12/30/2002 Thomas Lloyd Hiller LUC-356/Hiller 19-5 5776
47382 7590 01/26/2011
Carmen Patti Law Group, LLC
One N. LaSalle Street
44th Floor
Chicago, IL 60602
EXAMINER
SAMS, MATTHEW C
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2617
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
01/26/2011 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 BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________________

Ex parte THOMAS LLOYD HILLER
and PETER JAMES MCCANN
____________________

Appeal 2009-010208
Application 10/334,090
Technology Center 2600
____________________

Before ALLEN R. MacDONALD, ROBERT E. NAPPI and
THOMAS S. HAHN, Administrative Patent Judges.

MacDONALD, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL1

1 The two-month time period for filing an appeal or commencing a civil
action, as recited in 37 C.F.R. § 1.304, or for filing a request for rehearing,
as recited in 37 C.F.R. § 41.52, begins to run from the “MAIL DATE”
(paper delivery mode) or the “NOTIFICATION DATE” (electronic delivery
mode) shown on the PTOL-90A cover letter attached to this decision.
Appeal 2009-010208
Application 10/334,090

2
STATEMENT OF CASE
Introduction
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a final rejection of
claims 1-20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
Exemplary Claim(s)
Exemplary independent claim 1 under appeal reads as follows:
1. A method for automatically selecting a subset of users
from a group of users for establishing communication paths in a
telecommunications system where speech by an originating
user is transmitted as packets comprising the steps of:
receiving at a session node in the system a request from
an originating user to establish communication paths with said
group of users;
transmitting from the session node a query to a location
server for location information for members of said group;
receiving at the session node said location information
from the location server;
selecting said subset of users based at least in part on
geographic location of said members contained in said location
information;
establishing communication paths for speech from the
originating user to said subset of users by the session node;
duplicating voice packets from the originating user over
the communication paths from the originating user to said
subset of users;
receiving, at the session node and from a media resource
node, an alert after a predetermined time period since a last
voice packet has been received from the originating user
without a release by the originating user, wherein the alert
comprises an indication that communications with the
originating user may have been lost;
generating at the session node one or more release signals
to tear down the communication paths for speech from the
originating user to said subset of users upon receipt of the alert;
sending the one or more release signals to the media
resource node and the subset of user.
Appeal 2009-010208
Application 10/334,090

3
Rejection(s) and Appellants’ Contentions
At pages 5-7 of the Appeal Brief, Appellants contend that the
Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over the combination of Maggenti (US 6,965,767 B1) and
Tanaka (US 6,542,749 B2) because these references fail to disclose
“receiving, at the session node and from a media resource node, an alert after
a predetermined time period since a last voice packet has been received from
the originating user without a release by the originating user” as recited in
claims 1 and 9.

Issue on Appeal
Whether the Examiner has erred in rejecting claims 1-20 as being
obvious because the references fail to teach or suggest the argued limitation?

ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiners’ rejections in light of Appellants’
arguments that the Examiner has erred.
We disagree with Appellants’ conclusion. We adopt as our own
(1) the findings and reasons set forth by the Examiner in the action from
which this appeal is taken and (2) the reasons set forth by the Examiner in
the Examiner’s Answer in response to Appellants’ Appeal Brief. We
concur with the conclusion reached by the Examiner.

CONCLUSIONS
(1) The Examiner has not erred in rejecting claims 1-20 as being
unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
Appeal 2009-010208
Application 10/334,090

4
(2) Claims 1-20 are not patentable.

DECISION
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-20 is affirmed.
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

kis

Carmen Patti Law Group, LLC
One N. LaSalle Street
44th Floor
Chicago, IL 60602