Ex Parte Johnston et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 17, 2017

13931967 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 17, 2017)

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.
13/931,967 06/30/2013 Alan B. Johnston 4366-960 1027
48500 7590
SHERIDAN ROSS P.C.
1560 BROADWAY, SUITE 1200
DENVER, CO 80202
EXAMINER
JAKOVAC, RYAN J
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2445
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/22/2017 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):
cjacquet@ sheridanross.com
pair_Avay a @ firsttofile. com
edocket @ sheridanross .com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte ALAN B. JOHNSTON and JOHN H. YOAKUM
Appeal 2016-0083591
Application 13/931,967
Technology Center 2400
Before ROBERT E. NAPPI, JOHNNY A. KUMAR, and ALEX S. YAP,
Administrative Patent Judges.
YAP, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s final
rejection of claims 1—20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Avaya Inc. (App.
Br. 1.)
Appeal 2016-008359
Application 13/931,967
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
Appellants’ invention “relates generally to Web Real-Time
Communications (WebRTC) interactive sessions.” (Specification (filed
June 30, 2013) (“Spec.”) 11.) Claim 11 is illustrative, and is reproduced
(with minor formatting changes) below:
11. A system for providing a virtual Web Real-Time
Communications (WebRTC) gateway, comprising:
at least one communications interface; and
an interactive flow server associated with the at least one
communications interface, the interactive flow server
comprising a virtual WebRTC gateway configured to:
instantiate a virtual WebRTC agent corresponding
to a WebRTC client;
instantiate a virtual non-WebRTC agent
corresponding to a non-WebRTC client;
establish a WebRTC interactive flow between the
virtual WebRTC agent and the WebRTC client;
establish a non-WebRTC interactive flow between
the virtual non-WebRTC agent and the non-WebRTC
client; and
direct a content of the WebRTC interactive flow to
the non-WebRTC interactive flow, and a content of the
non-WebRTC interactive flow to the WebRTC
interactive flow, via the virtual WebRTC agent and the
virtual non-WebRTC agent.
2
Appeal 2016-008359
Application 13/931,967
Prior Art and Rejections on Appeal
The following table lists the prior art relied upon by the Examiner in
rejecting the claims on appeal:
Phelps etal. US 2014/0344169 A1 Nov. 20,2014
(“Phelps”)
Gaviria US 2014/0379931 A1 Dec. 25,2014
Claims 1—5 and 8—18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(2) as
being anticipated by Gaviria. (See Aug. 20, 2015 Final Action (“Final
Act.”) 4-7; Ans. 3.)
Claims 7 and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Gaviria in view of Phelps.2 (Final Act. 8—9; Ans. 3.)
Claims 6 and 19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Gaviria. (Final Act. 9; Ans. 3.)
ANAFYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellants’
arguments that the Examiner has erred. We are not persuaded that the
Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1—20.
2 The Examiner titled the obviousness rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103 but
referred to 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) in the analysis. (Final Act. 8—9.) Appellants
contend that “35 U.S.C. § 103(a) is not a statutory basis for rejection under
the AIA . . . [and] request[] that the [35 U.S.C. § 103(a)] rejections] be
withdrawn and that any new ground of rejection be made non-final, because
such new ground would not be necessitated by any amendment.” (App. Br.
9.) We decline to do so because the relief for which the Appellants seek is
not something we can correct; the issue may be petitionable to the Director.
3
Appeal 2016-008359
Application 13/931,967
“virtual WebRTC agent” and “virtual non-WebRTC agent”
With respect to claim 11, the Examiner finds that Gaviria anticipates
the claim. (Final Act. 5.) The Appellants, however, contend that
Gaviria fails to disclose both the “virtual WebRTC agent” and
the “virtual non-WebRTC agent” in a single embodiment, as
required by claim 11. As expressly defined by the present
[Specification, the “virtual WebRTC agent” of claim 11 “refers
to an instance of a WebRTC-enabled browser or other client
application that executes on the computing device 14 under the
control of the virtual WebRTC gateway 16.” Specification,
10019. Similarly, the present [Specification defines the
“virtual non-WebRTC agent” of claim 11....
(App. Br. 6—7.) The Examiner disagrees and finds that “Gaviria discloses a
system which enables protocol translation between entities utilizing
disparate protocols,” for example:
Gaviria’s WebRTC-IMS gateway allows communications
between a browser using a WebRTC protocol and an IMS core
using SIP and vice versa (Gaviria, 116).
The browser communicates data to the WebRTC-IMS
gateway via the WebRTC protocol. The WebRTC-IMS
gateway takes that data, translates it into another protocol such
as SIP, and subsequently initiates communication of that data to
the IMS core via SIP.
Gaviria’s WebRTC-IMS gateway provides a WebRTC
protocol based connection to the browser. Gaviria discloses the
“virtual WebRTC agent” as the gateway comprises the
necessary software to provide a WebRTC protocol based
connection (Gaviria, |[|] 14-16, 22).
Gaviria’s WebRTC-IMS gateway acts as a SIP endpoint
by providing a SIP based connection to the IMS core. Gaviria
discloses the “virtual non-WebRTC agent” as the gateway
comprises the necessary software to provide a non-WebRTC
protocol based connection, e.g. a SIP based connection
(Gaviria, |[|] 16, 22, 44).
4
Appeal 2016-008359
Application 13/931,967
(Ans. 4; Final Act. 5.)
Appellants have not persuaded us of Examiner error and we agree
with, and adopt as our own, the Examiner’s finding regarding Gaviria.
(Final Act. 5; Ans. 4—5.) Figure 1 of Gaviria is reproduced below.
FIG. 1
Figure 1 depicts “a WebRTC data connection from a WebRTC-enabled
browser[.]” (Gaviria 114.) Gaviria discloses that the WebRTC-IMS
gateway (“WGW”) 215 “may be capable of communicating via messages
and connections that are based on a WebRTC API.” {Id. at 122.) Similarly,
“WGW 215 may establish a data connection with IMS core 220 using one or
more messaging protocols that IMS core 220 is designed to interpret.” {Id.
at 144.) Therefore, we agree with the Examiner’s finding that the WGW
would necessarily “instantiate a virtual WebRTC agent corresponding to a
WebRTC client... in order to establish WebRTC connections” and would
also “instantiate a virtual non-WebRTC agent corresponding to a non-
WebRTC client... to facilitate communication via SIP messaging scheme”
with the IMS core. (Final Act. 5.) We also agree with the Examiner’s
5
Appeal 2016-008359
Application 13/931,967
finding that the Gaviria discloses a “virtual WebRTC agent” and a “virtual
non-WebRTC agent” in the same embodiment. For example, Gaviria
discloses that the WGW “may allow RCS communications, sent from the
browser, to be received by the IMS core, and vice versa.” (Gaviria 116,
emphasis added.) Therefore, in this embodiment, Gaviria discloses both a
“virtual WebRTC agent” and a “virtual non-WebRTC agent” instantiated by
the WGW.
We are similarly not persuaded by Appellants’ further contention that
the data provided in Gaviria, as discussed in paragraph 16 of Gaviria, is of
the same type, therefore, it excludes the use of a virtual WebRTC agent and
a virtual non-WebRTC agent. (App. Br. 7.) Specifically, we agree with the
Examiner’s finding that paragraph 16 of Gaviria discloses “data is
transferred on one side of the WebRTC-IMS gateway according to the
WebRTC protocol and transferred on the other side of the WebRTC-IMS
gateway according the another protocol, e.g. SIP[, and therefore, t]he data is
clearly WebRTC data on one hand and SIP data on the other.” (Ans. 4—5.)
With regard to claims 11 and 12, Appellants also contend that because
Gaviria discloses an “RMS server,” it cannot be the non-WebRTC client as
claimed. (App. Br. 7—8 (discussing claims 11 and 12); Reply 2.) We agree
with the Examiner that the Specification describes that “a ‘non-WebRTC
client’ may be a ‘daemon or service application’” (Ans. 5; Spec. 121) and
that “Gaviria’s IMS core is an example of a daemon or service application
because it performs analogous functions of a daemon or service
application^] such as waiting for incoming SIP communications and
providing SIP application services.” (Ans. 5.) Appellants have not offered
persuasive argument that the Examiner’s interpretation is either overbroad or
6
Appeal 2016-008359
Application 13/931,967
unreasonable. See In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319, 321 (Fed. Cir. 1989) (holding
that claims are interpreted in light of the Specification.).
For the foregoing reasons, we are not persuaded of Examiner error in
the rejection of claims 11 and 12. Thus, we sustain the 35 U.S.C. § 102
rejection of claims 11 and 12, as well as independent claims 1 and 15, which
are not argued separately. (App. Br. 8.) We also sustain the 35 U.S.C. § 102
rejection of claims 2, 5, 8—10, 14, 16, and 18, which depend on either claim
1, 11, or 15, and are not argued separately. (Id. at 6—9.) We further sustain
the 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejections of claims 6, 7, 19, and 20, which are not
argued separately. (Id. at 9-10.)
Claims 3, 4, 13, and 17
Claim 13 further recites that “the virtual WebRTC gateway is
configured to instantiate the virtual WebRTC agent and instantiate the
virtual non-WebRTC agent responsive to receiving an outbound request
from the WebRTC client to interact with the non-WebRTC client.'1'’
(Emphasis added.) Independent claims 3 and 17 recite similar features.
(App. Br. 8.) Appellants contend that Gaviria’s virtual WebRTC agent and
virtual non-WebRTC agent were not instantiated in response to an outbound
request from the WebRTC client. (Id. at 8—9.) We agree with the Examiner
that Gaviria discloses this limitation. Specifically, Figure 7 of Gaviria
“illustrates an example signal flow for establishing a WebRTC connection
between a WebRTC client [(i.e., web client server 210)] and a WGW, and
eventually forming a data path between the client an [sic] IMS core.”
(Gaviria 153.) Paragraph 53 of Gaviria further states that the
RCS web client server 210 may output ... an instruction to
request a WebRTC data connection with WGW 215 [and the
7
Appeal 2016-008359
Application 13/931,967
WGW 215] . . . may communicate with IMS core 220 [],...
such as [with] RCS server 225 [, i.e., the non-WebRTC client,]
in order to establish a SIP connection with [the] . . . IMS core
220.
(Id.) Therefore, we agree with the Examiner’s finding that Figure 7 of
Gaviria discloses the virtual WebRTC gateway (i.e., WGW 215) receiving
an outbound request from the WebRTC client (i.e., web client server 210) to
interact with the non-WebRTC client (i.e., RCS server 225). (Ans. 6.)
Furthermore, as discussed above, we agree with the Examiner’s finding that
the WGW would necessarily “instantiate a virtual WebRTC agent
corresponding to a WebRTC client... in order to establish WebRTC
connections” and would also “instantiate a virtual non-WebRTC agent
corresponding to a non-WebRTC client... to facilitate communication via
SIP messaging scheme” with the IMS core. (See also Ans. 6 (“agents are
not instantiated in a vacuum, but in response to client requests.”).)
Therefore, Appellants have not persuaded us of Examiner error.
For the foregoing reasons, we are not persuaded of Examiner error in
the rejection of claim 13. Thus, we sustain the 35 U.S.C. § 102 rejection of
claim 13, as well as claims 3 and 17, which are not argued separately. (App.
Br. 9.) We also sustain the 35 U.S.C. § 102 rejection of claim 4, which
depends from claim 3, and is not argued separately.
DECISION
We affirm the decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1—20.
8
Appeal 2016-008359
Application 13/931,967
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l)(iv).
AFFIRMED
9