Ex Parte KingDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardMay 31, 201612724226 (P.T.A.B. May. 31, 2016) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR 121724,226 03/15/2010 Keith C. King 35690 7590 06/02/2016 MEYERTONS, HOOD, KIVLIN, KOWERT & GOETZEL, P,C P.O. BOX 398 AUSTIN, TX 78767-0398 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 ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO. 5896-12901 6898 EXAMINER PATEL, HEMANT SHANTILAL ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2653 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 06/02/2016 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): patent_docketing@intprop.com ptomhkkg@gmail.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Exparte KEITH C. KING Appeal2014-009221 Application 12/724,226 Technology Center 2600 Before LARRY J. HUME, NATHAN A. ENGELS, and CARLL. SILVERMAN, Administrative Patent Judges. ENGELS, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's non- final rejection of claims 1, 3, 5-8, 10, 12-15, 17, 18, 20, 21, 23-27, 29, 30, 32, and 33. No other claims are pending. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. Appeal2014-009221 Application 12/724,226 ILLUSTRATIVE CLAIM Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 1. A computer accessible memory medium compnsmg program instructions for initiating a videoconference in a videoconferencing system, wherein the program instructions are executable to: store scheduling information for the videoconference, wherein the scheduling information indicates that at least one participant wishes to have a videoconference with one or more other participants at a desired time, wherein the desired time is a specific time on a specific date; determine that the at least one participant is physically proximate to the videoconferencing system at approximately the desired time, wherein said determining comprises determining that a mobile communication device of the at least one participant is physically proximate to the videoconferencing system; receive an indication that at least one of the one or more other participants are physically proximate to respective other videoconferencing systems at approximately the desired time; and automatically initiate the videoconference based on said determining and said receiving, wherein said automatically initiating is performed without any user input specifying initiation of the videoconference. REJECTIONS ON APPEAL Claims 1, 3, 5-8, 10, 12-15, 17, 18, 20, 21, 23, 25-27, 29, 30, 32, and 33 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable in view of Palakkal (US 2007/0264989 Al; Nov. 15, 2007), Iyer (US 2007/0081651 Al; Apr. 12, 2007), and Kenoyer (US 2007/0188597; Aug. 16, 2007). 2 Appeal2014-009221 Application 12/724,226 Claim 24 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable in view of Palakkal, Iyer, Kenoyer, and Bieselin (US 2006/0045030 Al; Mar. 2, 2006). ANALYSIS Appellant contends "the present claims relate to a situation where a conference is scheduled at a specific time and a specific date," but "Palakkal solves an entirely different problem and specifically teaches away from using a specific time and date for the conference." App. Br. 9 (emphasis omitted). Specifically, Appellant argues Palakkal teaches scheduling a window of time during which a teleconference can take place to avoid the task of scheduling a specific date and time-a task Palakkal calls "tedious" and "time consuming." App. Br. 9-11 (quoting Palakkal i-f 471). As such, Appellant argues Palakkal teaches away from the Examiner's combination and to change Palakkal' s teleconference window to a specific date and time would render the solution of Palakkal inoperable for its intended benefit. App. Br. 9-11. Appellant also argues Palakkal fails to teach or suggest "determining physical proximity to a videoconferencing system," as claimed. App. Br. 12; see App. Br. 12-15; Reply Br. 6-8. We find Appellant's arguments unpersuasive. Claim 1 requires "stor[ing] scheduling information" that indicates at least one participant's wish to have a video conference at a "desired time, wherein the desired time is a specific time on a specific date." Claim 1 also provides for receiving an indication that one or more other participants are physically proximate to the videoconferencing system "at approximately the desired time." As the Examiner explains (Ans. 30), Appellant's Specification defines 3 Appeal2014-009221 Application 12/724,226 "approximately the desired time," stating that the term "may refer to any time near the desired time which allows a participant who is joining the conference to be early or late for the conference. For Example, 'approximately the desired time' may refer to ... possibly deviations within 30 minutes [before or after the desired time]." Spec. i-f 44. In other words, claim 1 recites that a participant can set a desired time for a videoconference, but claim 1 also recognizes a window of time with its recitation of "approximately the desired time." As such, we are unpersuaded that the window of time described in Palakkal teaches away from the claimed invention or would otherwise render the Examiner's proposed combination inoperable. In fact, contrary to Appellant's arguments, Palakkal teaches using "participant preferences" that include "time of day" (Palakkal i-f 431) along with participant opt-out preferences and other rules to establish a window of time during which the video conference can take place (Palakkal i-fi-1 430- 431, 433, 441, 484). As such, we agree with the Examiner that Palakkal's teachings are entirely consistent with the plain language of claim 1 read in light of Appellant's Specification, and we agree with the Examiner that Palakkal teaches or suggests the claimed desired time, "wherein the desired time is a specific time on a specific date," and related limitations of claim 1. See Ans. 29-31. We are also unpersuaded by Appellant's arguments that the cited combination fails to teach or suggest "determin[ing] that the at least one participant is physically proximate to the videoconferencing system at approximately the desired time [by] determining that a mobile communication device of the at least one participant is physically proximate 4 Appeal2014-009221 Application 12/724,226 to the videoconferencing system." App. Br. 12; see Reply Br. 6-7. As explained by the Examiner (Non-Final Act. 4---6, 7-8), Palakkal's system "monitors for presence status of the participants" (Palakkal i-f 4 7 6) including monitoring log-in activity, location, and/or other rules/user preferences (see Palakkal i-fi-1476, 479, 482, 485), and, in the same field of endeavor as Palakkal and Appellant's invention, Kenoyer further teaches a videoconferencing system that detects "[ w ]hen the participant enters the videoconference room and comes in close proximity to the videoconferencing device" by establishing wireless communications with participants' mobile devices, among other means (Kenoyer i-fi-189, 100). See also Spec. i-f 43 (defining "a participant being 'proximate' to the conferencing system" to include a participant being in the same room as the conferencing system, among other things). Appellant has not demonstrated that the Examiner's proffered combination of references would have been "uniquely challenging or difficult for one of ordinary skill in the art." Leapfrog Enters., Inc. v. Fisher-Price, Inc., 485 F.3d 1157, 1162 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (citing KSR Int'! Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007)). We are similarly also unpersuaded of error in the Examiner's rejections of claims 3, 5-8, 10, 12-15, 17, 18, 20, 21, 23-27, 29, 30, 32, and 33. See App. Br. 15-19; Reply Br. 8-10. The Examiner's findings include citations to evidence that the limitations of each claim were known or would have been obvious at the time of Appellant's invention, and Appellant has not demonstrated that the proffered combinations would have been "uniquely challenging or difficult for one of ordinary skill in the art." Leapfrog, 485 F .3d at 1162. As one example, in addition to the citations of claim 1, the Examiner's rejection of claim 3 cites Kenoyer's disclosure of 5 Appeal2014-009221 Application 12/724,226 facial recognition used to identify participants in a video conference as evidence that the limitation "wherein said determining that the at least one participant is physically proximate to the videoconferencing system comprises performing facial recognition on the at least one participant" was known or would have been obvious. Appellant argues without evidentiary support and without substantively addressing the combined teaching of the prior art that "the teaching of facial recognition does not render every use of that detection obvious." App. Br. 16 (emphasis omitted); accord App. Br. 15-16; Reply Br. 8 ("Appellant respectfully submits that KSR does not make any modification desired by the Examiner admissible."). Accordingly, having considered the Examiner's rejections of claims 1, 3, 5-8, 10, 12-15, 17, 18, 20, 21, 23-27, 29, 30, 32, and 33 in view of each of Appellant's arguments, we are unpersuaded of error and adopt as our own the Examiner's findings, conclusions, and reasoning. We sustain the Examiner'srejectionofclaims 1,3,5-8, 10, 12-15, 17, 18,20,21,23-27, 29, 30, 32, and 33. DECISION We affirm the Examiner's rejections of claims 1, 3, 5-8, 10, 12-15, 17, 18,20,21,23-27,29,30,32,and33. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended. 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l )(iv). AFFIRMED 6 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation