Ex Parte Huotari et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 13, 2016

10732540 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 13, 2016)

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.
10/732,540 12/11/2003 Seppo Huotari 39700-794001US/NC40013US 6908
12358 7590 12/15/2016
Mintz Levin/Nokia Technologies Oy
One Financial Center
Boston, MA 02111
EXAMINER
TIV, BACKHEAN
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2451
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/15/2016 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):
IPDocketingBOS @ mintz.com
IPFileroomBOS@mintz.com
Nokia. IPR @ nokia. com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte SIMO HYYTIA, TIMO ELORANTA, OLLI PULKKINEN,
MARKKU VIMPARI, and KIRSI ROTSTEN
Appeal 2015-006794
Application 10/732,540
Technology Center 2400
Before JEFFREY S. SMITH, JOHN A. EVANS,
and DAVID J. CUTITTAII, Administrative Patent Judges.
SMITH, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal 2015-006794
Application 10/732,540
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the rejection of
claims 30—53, which are all the claims remaining in the application. We
have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.
30. A method comprising:
registering at least one user equipment at a service
provider;
receiving, at the service provider from the at least one
user equipment, information about media capabilities before a
data session with the at least one user equipment is requested;
storing the received information about the media
capabilities;
receiving, at the service provider, a request for the data
session with the at least one user equipment; and
using the stored information when setting up the
requested data session, wherein the information about the media
capabilities comprises information associated with available
communication ports and codec capabilities, and wherein
receiving the information about the media capabilities
comprises receiving at least one session initiation protocol
invite message from the at least one user equipment.
Illustrative Claim
Prior Art
Hsu
Denman
Hurtta
US 2004/0008632 A1
US 7,801,953 B1
WO 01/69950 A1
Jan. 15,2004
Sept. 21,2010
Sept. 20, 2001
2
Appeal 2015-006794
Application 10/732,540
Examiner’s Rejections
Claims 30-53 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Denman and Hsu.
Claims 30—53 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Hurtta, Denman, and Hsu.
ANALYSIS
Claim 30 recites “receiving, at the service provider from the at least
one user equipment, information about media capabilities before a data
session with the at least one user equipment is requested.” Appellants’
Specification discloses that in conventional session establishment
procedures, media capabilities of a user equipment are negotiated during the
session set-up procedure. Spec. 4:24—25. However, due to the nature of the
set-up procedure, media capability negotiations may take longer than a user
is willing to wait. See Spec. 5:1—18.
Appellants’ Specification discloses a solution of communicating
information about media capabilities with an application server before a
request for a data session is sent to the application server. Spec. 5:20—25,
6:11—15. The information about media capabilities is stored. Spec. 5:20-25.
When a request for a data session is sent, the stored information is used
when setting up the requested data session. Id. Appellants’ Specification
discloses that receiving and storing information about media capabilities
before a data session is requested decreases the time required for setting up a
connection with appropriate media capabilities, avoids unnecessary
repetition of session requests, saves resources, and improves usability of
time critical services. See Spec. 6:16—22.
3
Appeal 2015-006794
Application 10/732,540
The Examiner finds Denman teaches a server that queries for media
capabilities during a set-up phase, before the data session is established.
Ans. 3. However, claim 1 recites “receiving, at the service provider from the
at least one user equipment, information about media capabilities before a
data session with the at least one user equipment is requested.'1'’ Even
accepting the Examiner’s finding that the query occurs before the data
session is established, the Examiner has not shown that the query of Denman
occurs before the data session is requested as recited in claim 1. Rather, the
Examiner’s finding reflects the prior art disclosed by Appellants on page 4
of the Specification, which is, in conventional session establishment
procedures, media capabilities of a user equipment are negotiated during the
session set-up procedure. Spec. 4:24—25. This results in the problem of
media capability negotiations taking longer than a user is willing to wait.
See Spec. 5:1—18.
The Examiner finds Paragraph 85 of Hsu teaches an SIP invite can
contain information about media capabilities. Ans. 4. However, even
accepting the Examiner’s findings as correct, the Examiner has not shown
that the SIP invite containing information about media capabilities discussed
in Paragraph 85 of Hsu is received before a data session is requested. Thus,
Hsu does not make up for the deficiency of Denman.
The Examiner finds Hurtta teaches exchanging capability information
in advance, using an SIP, during the H.323 set up. Ans. 6. However, even
accepting the Examiner’s findings as correct, the Examiner has not shown
that the SIP containing information about media capabilities is received
before a data session is requested. Hurtta also does not make up for the
deficiency of Denman.
4
Appeal 2015-006794
Application 10/732,540
Each of the references cited by the Examiner, at best, teaches
exchanging media capabilities during a session set-up procedure, which is
the prior art problem discussed by Appellants in the background section of
the Specification. Even if the references were combined, the Examiner has
not shown that the combination teaches “receiving, at the service provider
from the at least one user equipment, information about media capabilities
before a data session with the at least one user equipment is requested’’ as
recited in claim 1.
We do not sustain the Examiner’s rejections of claims 30—53 under
35 U.S.C. § 103.
DECISION
The rejections of claims 30-53 are reversed.
REVERSED
5