Ex Parte Hoffmann et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Mar 30, 2011

10221268 (B.P.A.I. Mar. 30, 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.
10/221,268 08/25/2003 Klaus Hoffmann 2001P15981 2951
24131 7590 03/31/2011
LERNER GREENBERG STEMER LLP
P O BOX 2480
HOLLYWOOD, FL 33022-2480
EXAMINER
HSU, ALPUS
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2465
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/31/2011 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 KLAUS HOFFMANN, SVEN SABROWSKI and
JEAN-MARIE STUPKA

___________

Appeal 2009-013614
Application 10/221,268
Technology Center 2400
____________

Before ROMULO H. DELMENDO, SCOTT R. BOALICK, and
JEFFREY B. ROBERTSON, Administrative Patent Judges.

BOALICK, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2009-013614
Application 10/221,268

2
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the rejection of
claims 1-11, all the claims pending in the application. We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm-in-part.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants’ invention relates to a method for establishing coding for
working data generated according to different coding laws. (Spec. 1:12-14.)
During a transfer of working data from an origination network to a target
network, conversion from one coding law to another (e.g., A-law to µ-law)
takes place at the target network. (Abstract.)
Claim 1 is exemplary, with disputed limitations in italics:
1. A method for establishing coding of working data
generated according to different coding laws, between at least two
subscriber terminals, where an A side is defined according to the first
coding law and a B side is defined according to the second coding
law, comprising:
transmitting the working data via a plurality of transmission
devices which are configured as an interface between a first and a
second transmission network, and which are controlled by respective
control devices assigned thereto, which transmission and control
devices process signaling data assigned to the working data, which are
exchanged by a signaling protocol; and
providing an indicator representative of the first coding law of
the A side, which is transmitted to the B side, and the incoming
working data is converted to the coding law of the B side, as
determined by the evaluation that takes place on the B side.

Claims 1 and 3-6 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being
anticipated by Liau (U.S. Patent No. 6,574,280).
Claims 2 and 7-11 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
obvious over Liau and Kung (U.S. Patent No. 6,252,952).
Appeal 2009-013614
Application 10/221,268

3
ISSUES
§ 102 Rejection – Liau
With respect to independent claim 1, Appellants argue that Liau does
not teach the claim limitations “as determined by the evaluation that takes
place on the B side” and an “indicator.” (Br. 11.) Appellants also argue that
Liau does not teach the claim limitation of “transmission devices which are
configured as an interface between a first and a second transmission
network.” (Br. 11-12.)
Appellants’ arguments present the following issues:
1. Does Liau teach the limitation “as determined by the evaluation
that takes place on the B side”?
2. Does Liau teach an “indicator”?
3. Does Liau teach “transmission devices which are configured as an
interface between a first and a second transmission network”?
§ 103 Rejection – Liau/Kung
With respect to dependent claim 2, Appellants argue that the
combination of Liau and Kung does not teach or suggest “CODEC
negotiation.” (Br. 12.)
Appellants’ argument presents the following dispositive issue:
Has the Examiner shown that a person of ordinary skill in the art
would have understood the combination of Liau and Kung to teach or
suggest “CODEC negotiation”?
Appeal 2009-013614
Application 10/221,268

4
FINDINGS OF FACT (“FF”)
Liau
1. Liau relates “to signaling techniques for determining the digital
characteristics of an end-to-end modem channel.” (Col. 1, ll. 20-22.)
In the context of a public branch exchange (PBX) system, a fully
digital end-to-end modem system 200 (col. 4, ll. 44-46; fig. 2)
includes a first PBX system 202 and a second PBX system 204
(col. 4, ll. 48-50), a plurality of telephony devices 216 and 218 (col. 4,
ll. 50-52), and a digital network 206 (col. 4, ll. 65-66). Examples of
telephony devices include a telephone handset, a facsimile machine or
a digitally connected modem associated with a personal computer.
(Col. 4, ll. 52-55.)
2. Liau describes that a calling modem transmits a digital channel
identification (DIDc) sequence to an answer modem near the
beginning of the startup routine. (Col. 2, ll. 22-24.) “The DIDc
sequence is also formatted such that the answer modem can determine
the characteristics of the communication channel by analyzing the
received DIDc sequence.” (Col. 2, ll. 27-30.)
3. For a schematic channel model 600, a PSTN (public switched
telephone network) call is switched among ISDN (integrated services
digital network) channels and central site digital modems using
different PCM (pulse code modulation) characteristic codes (e.g., mu-
law and A-law). (Col. 8, ll. 1-4; fig. 6.) A first modem device 602
includes an A-law transmitter and an A-law receiver. (Col. 8, ll. 12-
13; fig. 6.) A second modem device 604 includes a mu-law
transmitter and a mu-law receiver. (Col. 8, ll. 14-15; fig. 6.) “For
Appeal 2009-013614
Application 10/221,268

5
purposes of channel model 600, it is assumed that the mu-law service
regions are responsible for maintaining the proper PCM format . . . .”
(Col. 8, ll. 4-6.) Furthermore, “the PSTN in the mu-law country . . .
converts the A-law codewords received from the A-law country into
mu-law codewords.” (Col. 8, ll. 6-10.)
Kung
4. Kung relates “to providing a broadband communication system
including an Internet Protocol Telephony Network and public
switched telephone network.” (Col. 1, ll. 10-14.) Kung describes that
an IP central station 200 is configured to integrate an IP network 120
with a public switched telephone network 160, a signaling system 7
(SS7) network 170 and the Internet 180. (Col. 6, ll. 36-42; fig. 2.)
The IP central station 200 includes a central router 210 (col. 6, ll. 52-
53, 56), a call manager (CM) server 218 (col. 6, l. 67) and a voice
gateway (VG) 232 (col. 7, ll. 21-22).
5. In one example, an Ethernet interface connects the voice gateway 232
to the central router 210 and a multimedia gateway control protocol
interfaces the voice gateway 232 and the call manager 218. (Col. 13,
ll. 12-17.) “For example, call control, signaling, and multimedia data
stream, real time protocol (RTP) connections, IP addresses, UDP
ports, codec choice etc, may be configured in any suitable manner
such as by using a multimedia gateway control protocol.” (Col. 13,
ll. 17-21.)
Appeal 2009-013614
Application 10/221,268

6
ANALYSIS
§ 102 Rejection – Liau
With respect to the first issue, we are not convinced by Appellants’
argument (Br. 11) that Liau does not teach the claim limitation “as
determined by the evaluation that takes place on the B side.”
The Examiner found that the A-law country of Liau corresponds to
the claimed “A-side” and that the mu-law country of Liau corresponds to
claimed “B-side.” (Ans. 4; FF 3.) The Examiner also found that the channel
model 600 of Liau in which a mu-law service region converts A-law
codewords into mu-law codewords, corresponds to the claim limitation “as
determined by the evaluation that takes place on the B side.” (Ans. 4, 10;
FF 3.) We agree with the Examiner.
Liau teaches a schematic channel model 600 that includes a first
modem device 602 and a second modem device 604. (FF 3.) The first
modem device 602 includes an A-law transmitter and an A-law receiver.
(FF 3.) The second modem device 604 includes a mu-law transmitter and a
mu-law receiver. (FF 3.) Liau also teaches that a public switched telephone
network (PSTN) in the mu-law country converts A-law codewords received
from the A-law country into mu-law codewords. (FF 3.) In other words,
Liau teaches that A-law codewords received by the second modem
device 604 are converted in the mu-law country “as determined by the
evaluation that takes place on the B side.”
Appellants argue that Liau does not teach the disputed limitation
because “in Liau, the μ-law country (which is on the A-side) always
converts.” (Br. 11.) However, as discussed previously, the rejection of
claim 1 was not based on the correspondence of the mu-law country of Liau
Appeal 2009-013614
Application 10/221,268

7
with the claimed “A-side.” (Ans. 4, 10; FF 3.) Furthermore, Appellants
have not provided any persuasive rationale or explanation as to why the A-
law country of Liau does not correspond to the claimed “A-side.”
Therefore, we agree with the Examiner that Liau teaches the
limitation “as determined by the evaluation that takes place on the B side.”
With respect to the second issue, we are not convinced by Appellants’
argument (Br. 11) that Liau does not teach an “indicator.”
The Examiner found that “[t]he data received in the μ-Law country is
an indicator that the conversion must take place.” (Ans. 10; FF 2, 3.) We
agree with the Examiner.
Liau teaches that a calling modem transmits a digital channel
identification (DIDc) sequence to an answer modem near the beginning of a
startup routine such that the answer modem can determine the characteristics
of a communication channel (FF 2) (e.g., mu-law and A-law (FF 3)). As
discussed previously, Liau teaches that for the channel model 600, the PSTN
in the mu-law country converts A-law codewords received from the A-law
country into mu-law codewords. (FF 3.) In other words, the DIDc and the
A-law codewords collectively function as an “indicator” of the A-law to mu-
law conversion.
Therefore, we agree with the Examiner that Liau teaches an
“indicator.”
With respect to the third issue, we are not convinced by Appellants’
argument (Br. 11-12) that Liau does not teach the claim limitation
“transmission devices which are configured as an interface between a first
and a second transmission network.”
Appeal 2009-013614
Application 10/221,268

8
The Examiner found that the telephony devices 216 and 218 of Liau
correspond to the claimed “transmission devices which are configured as an
interface between a first and a second transmission network.” (Ans. 10-11;
FF 1.) We agree with the Examiner.
Liau teaches a fully digital end-to-end modem system 200 including a
first public branch exchange (PBX) system 202, a second PBX system 204
and a plurality of telephony devices 216 and 218. (FF 1.) In other words,
the plurality of telephony devices 216 and 218 (i.e., the claimed
“transmission devices”) are configured to interface with the first PBX
system 202 and the second PBX system 204 (i.e., the claimed “first and . . .
second transmission network”).
Appellants argue that in Liau, the “telephony devices 216, 218 are
clearly telephony handsets . . . which are external devices, i.e. they are not
located inside a transmission network.” (Br. 11-12.) Although Appellants
are attempting to distinguish over Liau by arguing that the telephony
devices 216 and 218 are external to a transmission network, they have not
explained why these devices cannot be considered to be “configured as an
interface between a first and a second transmission network,” as recited in
claim 1.
Therefore, we agree with the Examiner that Liau teaches
“transmission devices which are configured as an interface between a first
and a second transmission network.”
We affirm the rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e).
Claims 3-6 depend from independent claim 1 and we affirm the rejection of
these claims under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) for the reasons discussed with respect
to independent claim 1.
Appeal 2009-013614
Application 10/221,268

9
§ 103 Rejection – Liau/Kung
Claim 2
We are convinced by Appellants’ argument (Br. 12) that the Examiner
has not shown that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have
understood the combination Liau and Kung to teach or suggest “CODEC
negotiation.”
The Examiner acknowledged that Liau does not teach “CODEC
negotiation” (Ans. 6) and cited Kung for the disclosure of a multimedia
gateway control protocol that includes a codec choice for interfacing a voice
gateway 232 and a call manager 218. (Ans. 6-7, 11-12). We do not agree.
Kung teaches an IP central station 200 including a central router 210,
a call manager server 218 and a voice gateway 232. (FF 4.) In one example,
to interface the voice gateway 232 and the call manager 218, Kung teaches a
multimedia gateway control protocol that includes a “codec choice.” (FF 5.)
However, the Examiner has not provided an adequate explanation as to how
the mere disclosure of the “codec choice” of Kung corresponds to a
“CODEC negotiation” between two transmission devices.
Therefore, we can not agree with the Examiner that a person of
ordinary skill in the art would have understood the combination Liau and
Kung to teach or suggest “CODEC negotiation.” Accordingly, we reverse
the rejection of dependent claim 2 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
Claims 7-11
Appellants do not provide any additional arguments with respect to
claims 7-11, which depend from independent claim 1. Accordingly, we
sustain the rejection of dependent claims 7-11 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
Appeal 2009-013614
Application 10/221,268

10
DECISION
The rejections of claims 1 and 3-11 under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102(e) and
103(a) are affirmed.
The rejection of claim 2 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) is reversed.
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-IN-PART

bim