Ex Parte Johnson et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardDec 22, 201612771358 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 22, 2016) Copy Citation 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. 12/771,358 04/30/2010 Jesse Johnson 032200.00005 1526 4372 7590 12/27/2016 ARENT FOX LLP 1717 K Street, NW WASHINGTON, DC 20006-5344 EXAMINER LINDENBAUM, ALAN LOUIS ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2466 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 12/27/2016 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): patentdocket @ arentfox. com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte JESSE JOHNSON, JOSE FERNANDEZ, STEPHEN VO WELL, and KEVIN MAYER Appeal 2016-001833 Application 12/771,35s1 Technology Center 2400 Before JAMES R. HUGHES, JOHN D. HAMANN, and MATTHEW J. McNEILL, Administrative Patent Judges. McNEILL, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-19, which are all the claims pending in this application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We reverse. 1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Orbit-Matrix, LLC. App. Br. 1. Appeal 2016-001833 Application 12/771,358 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Introduction Appellants’ application relates to enabling interoperable and low- latency networking among service devices. Spec. 112. Claim 1 is illustrative of the subject matter on appeal and reads as follows: 1. A hybrid communications machine defining a computer having a non-transitory computer memory and a computer processor, the hybrid communications machine enabling interoperable and low-latency networking among service devices, the hybrid communications machine comprising: an I/O device for receiving a plurality of incoming data transmissions, the incoming data transmissions including a plurality of analog data transmissions via one of an impedance- matched twisted-pair copper wire or optical media, the plurality of analog data transmissions media defining VUTP media, and further including a plurality of digital data transmissions via one of a fiber medium, twisted pair copper wire, or wireless medium, the plurality of digital data transmissions defining Ethernet transmission media, each of the analog data transmissions being received from a plurality of analog service devices implementing a unique device protocol and each of the digital data transmissions being received from a plurality of digital service devices implementing a unique device protocol; and a computer program product, stored in the non-transitory computer memory and operable on the computer for performing a process of controlling the digital service devices and analog service devices and a process of allocating a frequency spectrum for outgoing data transmissions, the computer program product comprising the instructions of: dynamically allocating frequency spectrum for data transmissions between any of a plurality of analog service devices and any of a plurality of digital service devices, the dynamic allocation being responsive to any of a service type, service demand, and quality of service 2 Appeal 2016-001833 Application 12/771,358 threshold for the outgoing transmission media, digital device protocols, and analog device protocols; matching at a central control authority, upon receipt of the incoming data transmission, the incoming data transmission to the plurality of analog device protocols to determine the necessary instructions and transmission media to command and control the plurality of analog service devices, in addition to the frequency allocation, according to the incoming data transmission or the plurality of digital device protocols to determine the necessary instructions and transmission media to command and control the plurality of digital service devices, in addition to the frequency allocation, according to the incoming data transmission, determining an outgoing transmission media for the incoming data transmission, and constructing outgoing data transmissions between any of the analog service devices and any of the digital service devices responsive to the matching of the analog and digital device protocols and the identification of the outgoing transmission media to command and control the devices in addition to frequency allocation. The Examiner’s Rejections Claims 1-3, 5-8, 10-13, 15-17, and 19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Fernandez (US 2007/0245393 Al; Oct. 18, 2007). Final Act. 2-6. Claims 4, 9, 14, and 18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Fernandez. Final Act. 7-8. 3 Appeal 2016-001833 Application 12/771,358 ANALYSIS We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in consideration of Appellants’ contentions and the evidence of record. Appellants persuade us the Examiner fails to establish the claims are unpatentable. The Examiner finds Fernandez discloses transmitting audio and video signals to a plurality of devices. Ans. 9 (citing Fernandez || 2, 9, 21). The Examiner finds this disclosure satisfies the claimed “transmission media to command and control the devices,” under the broadest reasonable interpretation of claim 1. Id. Appellants argue the Examiner erred in finding Fernandez discloses “transmission media to command and control the devices” because the mere transmission of an audio/video signal does not command and control a service device. App. Br. 9-12, Reply Br. 3-5. Appellants argue an audio/video signal may be sent to a service device and that the service device may display the audio/video signal, but sending such a signal does not “command and control” the service device. App. Br. 10. The Examiner responds that Appellants provide no definition of “command and control” that contrasts the claimed “command and control” and the Examiner’s interpretation of audio/video signals. Ans. 9. Appellants have persuaded us of Examiner error. Fernandez discloses transmitting audio/video signals to a plurality of service devices. Ans. 9 (citing Fernandez || 2, 9, 21). However, under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim, transmitting audio/video signals to service devices does not “command and control” the devices. For example, as argued by Appellants, the recipient device may select or use the audio/video signal, but the device controls whether that occurs, not the audio/video 4 Appeal 2016-001833 Application 12/771,358 signal. See App. Br. 11. Accordingly, on this record, we do not sustain the rejection of claim 1 as anticipated by Fernandez.2 Independent claims 10 and 17 recite similar limitations. We, therefore, do not sustain the rejections of claims 10 and 17 for the same reasons. We also do not sustain the rejections of dependent claims 2-9, 11-16, 18, and 19, which depend from claims 1, 10, and 17.3 DECISION We reverse the decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1-3, 5-8, 10-13, 15-17, and 19 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Fernandez. We reverse the decision of the Examiner to reject claims 4, 9, 14, and 18 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Fernandez. REVERSED 2 Should there be further prosecution of this application, the Examiner may wish to consider whether claim 1 would have been obvious over Fernandez, either alone or in combination with another reference, in light of Fernandez’s teaching of transmitting various protocols, including Session Initiation Protocol (SIP). See Fernandez 121. Although the Board is authorized to reject claims under 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b), no inference should be drawn when the Board elects not to do so. See Manual of Patent Examining Procedure (MPEP) § 1213.02. 3 Because we are persuaded of error with regard to the identified issue, which is dispositive of the rejection of claims 1-19, we do not reach the additional issues raised by Appellants’ arguments. 5 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation