Ex Parte Houck et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Oct 23, 2014

10657864 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 23, 2014)

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.
10/657,864 09/09/2003 David J. Houck Houck 5-2-1-3
(LCNT/12569
2071
46363 7590 10/24/2014
WALL & TONG, LLP/
ALCATEL-LUCENT USA INC.
25 James Way
Eatontown, NJ 07724
EXAMINER
WU, JIANYE
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2462
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 DAVID J. HOUCK, EUNYOUNG KIM,
HUSEYIN UZUNALIOGLU, and LARRY A. WEHR
____________________

Appeal 2012-002726
Application 10/657,864
Technology Center 2400
____________________

Before JOSEPH L. DIXON, JAMES R. HUGHES, and ERIC S. FRAHM,
Administrative Patent Judges.

DIXON, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2012-002726
Application 10/657,864
2
STATEMENT OF CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a rejection of claims 1–
6 and 9–33. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.

The claims are directed to management of voice over IP
communications. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed
subject matter:
1. A method for determining whether to accept a new call to
be routed from a first gateway to a second gateway in an IP
network, the method comprising the steps of:

obtaining, at the first gateway, information indicative of
the quality of service of voice calls being transmitted from the
first gateway to the second gateway via a plurality of network
paths between the first gateway and the second gateway;

determining, using at least a portion of said information,
a plurality of congestion status parameters indicative of
respective congestion statuses of the network paths, each of
said network paths being associated with respective first
gateway egress interfaces and a second gateway system IP
address; and

determining, using at least one of the congestion status
parameters, whether to accept the new call into the network at
the first gateway for transmission toward the second gateway
via one of the network paths.

REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Watt US 5,781,532 July 14, 1998
Szabo US 2002/0003779 A1 Jan. 10, 2002
Appeal 2012-002726
Application 10/657,864
3
Elliott
Hooper
US 2004/0022237 A1
US 2004/0252686 A1
Feb. 5, 2004
Dec. 16, 2004

H. Schulzrinne et al., RTP: A Transport Protocol for Real-Time
Applications, Network Working Group, Request for Comments: 3550,
Standards Track, 1-103 (July 2003) (hereinafter “Schulzrinne”).

REJECTIONS
The Examiner made the following rejections:
Claims 1–6 and 9–33 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first
paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement.
Claims 1, 3, 5, 14, 15, 18, 23, 26, and 33 stand rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Elliott and Szabo.
Claims 2 and 13 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Elliott, Szabo, and Watt.
Claims 4, 6, 9, 10, 19–22, 24, 25, and 27–32 stand rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Elliott, Szabo, and Schulzrinne.
Claims 11 and 12 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Elliott, Szabo, Watt, and Schulzrinne.
Claims 16 and 17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Elliott, Schulzrinne, Szabo, and Hooper.

ANALYSIS
The Written Description Rejections
Regarding claim 1, Appellants contend the Examiner’s rejection was
“not based on the evidence as a whole” because the “the phrase: ‘first
gateway egress interfaces’ is reasonably ascertainable by those skilled in the
art” from Appellants’ Specification (App. Br. 8), which describes the
Appeal 2012-002726
Application 10/657,864
4
following: “Since each egress port would map into a unique path in the IP
network 118, the load from source gateway 114 to a destination gateway
(i.e., second gateway 116) can be partitioned into different paths, resulting in
load sharing in the network” (Spec. 6:28–31). We disagree with Appellants
that the Specification provides written description support for the disputed
claim 1 limitation.
Claim 1 recites “each of said network paths being associated with
respective first gateway egress interfaces and a second gateway system IP
address” (emphases added). As drafted, the plain meaning of this limitation
requires each network path be associated with multiple first gateway egress
interfaces. The portion of the Specification Appellants cite would not have
demonstrated to one of ordinary skill in the art that Appellants had
possession of this claimed feature at the time of filing. Rather, the
Specification’s description that “each egress port would map into a unique
path in the IP network 118” supports only one single egress port associated
with each network path (see Spec. 6:28–31).
We are, therefore, not persuaded the Examiner erred in rejecting claim
1, and claims 2–6, 9–13, and 23–33 which depend therefrom, as failing to
comply with the written description requirement. The Examiner mistakenly
states that claims 14–22 also depend from claim 1 (Ans. 5). However,
independent claim 14 recites the same limitation as independent claim 1,
namely, “each of said network paths being associated with respective first
gateway egress interfaces and a second gateway system IP address.”
Accordingly, we also sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 14 and
claims 15–22 which depend therefrom, for the reasons discussed above.
Additionally, regarding claim 31 which was separately rejected for
failing to comply with the written description requirement, Appellants
Appeal 2012-002726
Application 10/657,864
5
contend “[w]ithout a reasonable basis for questioning the adequacy of the
written description, the rejection must be withdrawn” (App. Br. 9). We
disagree with Appellants.
Claim 31 recites “using all of the network congestion parameters” to
determine whether to accept a new call into the network. Appellants cite the
Specification to support this feature (App. Br. 9), which describes circuit
cards in a first gateway to “make determinations on the level of congestion
on pathways” (Spec. 8:2–6) and a rules database that reflects “the congestion
status of the network paths from the local gateway to remote gateways”
(Spec. 14:12–14). However, neither of these portions of the Specification
describes how the parameters are used to determine whether to accept a call.
Rather, these portions merely show that the Specification describes
collecting and maintaining congestion information about the network paths.
In the Reply Brief, Appellants cite additional alleged support for the
disputed feature (Reply Br. 4):
For each RTP stream, the receiver measures call quality
statistics like packet loss ratio, delay and interarrival jitter for
the stream. The measured statistics are sent back to the source
gateway 114 periodically in a special field within the RTP
packets or in RTCP packets. In one example, these statistics
reflect the network conditions for the path following (E2-ER1-
Network-ER3-E4). Thus, the MBCAC algorithm utilizes the
call quality statistics of this flow to derive the congestion status
of the directed path, uniquely defined by the source gateway
E2, destination gateway pair.

(Spec. 6:32–7:7). Here too, the Specification describes collecting
congestion information, but does not describe how any congestion
parameters are used to accept calls. Accordingly, Appellants have not
Appeal 2012-002726
Application 10/657,864
6
presented evidence to show possession of the claim 31 feature “using all of
the network congestion parameters” at the time of filing.
We are therefore not persuaded the Examiner erred in rejecting claim
31 as failing to comply with the written description requirement.

The Obviousness Rejections
Regarding claim 1, Appellants contend neither Elliott nor Szabo
discloses “obtaining, at the first gateway, information indicative of the
quality of service of voice calls being transmitted from the first gateway to
the second gateway . . .” and “determining, using at least a portion of said
information, a plurality of congestion status parameters indicative of
respective congestion statuses of the network paths . . .” (see App. Br. 10–
13). Further, Appellants contend the Examiner failed to provide a proper
motivation to combine Szabo with Elliott (App. Br. 14–15). We disagree
with Appellants.
Szabo discloses the following:
First, in a step 201, an incoming call from the first
subscriber 103 to the second subscriber 103 is received by the
IP telephony gateway 109. Thereupon in a step 203, the current
value of at least one performance indicator is read from the
monitoring mechanism 115, e.g., the RTCP mechanism. In
particular, the IP telephony gateway 109 collects statistics from
a number of ongoing calls for determining whether to accept or
reject an incoming call, based on the collected statistics. The at
least one performance indicator value is then obtained from the
collected call statistics. For example, an average value of at
least one quality indicating performance parameter for a
number of ongoing calls may be calculated.

Next in a step 205, it is checked if the at least one current
performance indicator value, which is read from the monitoring
mechanism 115, fulfils a threshold condition. . . .
Appeal 2012-002726
Application 10/657,864
7

If it is determined in step 205 that the threshold condition
is fulfilled, e.g., that the at least one performance indicator
value read from the RTCP mechanism does not exceed a pre-set
threshold value, the call is accepted in a step 207.

(Szabo ¶¶ 26–28). Here, Szabo describes, at an IP telephony gateway,
obtaining call statistics, i.e. “information indicative of the quality of service
of voice calls,” as recited in claim 1, and determining at least one
performance indicator value such as a quality indicating performance
parameter, i.e. “congestion status parameters,” as further recited in claim 1.
The at least one performance indicator value is then used to determine
whether to accept a call on the IP network (See Szabo ¶¶ 27–28; Figs. 1 and
2). We thus find that Szabo discloses the claimed “obtaining” and
determining” features recited in claim 1.
Although Appellants argue “the claimed congestion status parameters
are packet loss ratio, delay and interarrival jitter” (App. Br. 12), we agree
with the Examiner that the Specification presents these parameters as merely
examples of congestion status parameters, not as a strict definition (see Ans.
28; Spec. 6:32–7:7). Accordingly, the fact that Szabo does not explicitly
disclose “packet loss ratio, delay and interarrival jitter” is not persuasive of
error in the Examiner’s finding that Szabo discloses “congestion status
parameters.”
Further, we are also not persuaded by Appellants’ argument that the
Examiner failed to provide a proper motivation to combine Szabo with
Elliott. The Examiner states “it would have been obvious to a person of
ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to apply Szabo’s teaching
above to the gateways disclosed by Elliott for the benefit of ensuring ‘a
transmission path with acceptable transmission quality’ ([0008] of Szabo)”
Appeal 2012-002726
Application 10/657,864
8
(Ans. 7). Appellants do not specifically explain why this explicitly stated
motivation fails to support the Examiner’s conclusion that the claimed
invention would have been obvious (see App. Br. 14–15).
We are therefore not persuaded the Examiner erred in rejecting claim
1, and claims 2–6 and 9–33 not specifically argued separately, as obvious.

CONCLUSIONS
Under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, the Examiner did not err in
rejecting claims 1–6 and 9–33.
Under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a), the Examiner did not err in rejecting claims
1–6 and 9–33.

DECISION
For the above reasons, the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1–6 and 9–
33 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