10377442 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 7, 2013)

Ex Parte LeBlanc et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardFeb 7, 2013

10377442 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 7, 2013)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte WILFRID LEBLANC and DARWIN RAMBO ____________ Appeal 2010-007230 Application 10/377,442 Technology Center 2400 ____________ Before JOSEPH L. DIXON, ST. JOHN COURTENAY III, and CARLA M. KRIVAK, Administrative Patent Judges. KRIVAK, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of claims 1-47 (App. Br. 2). We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. Appeal 2010-007230 Application 10/377,442 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants’ claimed invention is directed to monitoring and managing packet voice communication systems. Particularly, the invention is directed to operating a packet voice communication system where existing system operation statistics are used to derive a quality of service metric indicative of perceived voice quality (Spec. ¶¶[09],[12]). Independent claim 1, reproduced below, is representative of the subject matter on appeal. 1. A method of operating a packet voice transceiver, the method comprising: collecting at least two statistics related to a packet voice call; calculating, according to a formula, at least one voice quality metric using the at least two statistics, wherein the formula used in the calculation of the at least one voice quality metric changes depending upon a value of one or more of the at least two statistics; and modifying the processing of voice information in the packet voice transceiver based upon the at least one voice quality metric. REFERENCES and REJECTIONS The Examiner rejected claims 1, 3, 15, and 27 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) based upon the teachings of Starr (US Patent No. 7,120,122 Bl, issued October 10, 2006, filed September 08, 2000). The Examiner rejected claims 1-7, 9-13, 15-19, 21-25, 27-31, 33-37, 39, 40, and 42-47 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based upon the teachings of Starr and Clark (US Patent No. 7,058,048 B2, issued June 06, 2006; Appeal 2010-007230 Application 10/377,442 3 continuation of US Patent Application No. 09/551,498, filed April 18, 2000, now US Patent No. 6,741,569). The Examiner rejected claims 8, 20, and 32 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based upon the teachings of Starr, Clark, and Yaakov (US Patent No. 6,748,433 B1, issued June 08, 2004, filed July 10, 2000).1 The Examiner rejected claims 14, 26, 38, and 41 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based upon the teachings of Starr, Clark, and McClennon (US Patent No. 6,324,170 Bl, issued November 27, 2001, filed September 10, 1998). ANALYSIS Rejection of claims 1, 3, 15, and 27 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) The Examiner finds Starr teaches all of Appellants’ claim limitations, particularly, Starr’s Equation 1 corresponds to Appellants’ “formula” (Ans. 4). The Examiner further finds Appellants’ claim recites “a formula” and “the formula,” however, no other reference to a formula is recited in claim 1. Thus, the Examiner asserts, Appellants “strictly claim[s] one single formula” and therefore Appellants’ arguments are based on “an unclaimed limitation” (Ans. 31). Appellants contend the Examiner is incorrect in finding Starr teaches all the elements of Appellants’ claims. Particularly, Appellants contend Starr does not teach a formula used in a calculation changes (i.e., using a different formula) depending upon a value of at least two statistics, as claimed (App. Br. 8-9). That is, Starr only uses a single formula in a 1 Examiner mistakenly refers to US patent 6,784,433 to the Zur patent, rather than US patent 6,748,433 to Yaakov. Appeal 2010-007230 Application 10/377,442 4 calculation and does not teach changing the formula. Thus the Examiner’s reliance on Starr’s Equation 1 to teach a formula changes depending on a value of one or more of at least two statistics (Ans. 4), is incorrect (App. Br. 10). Starr discloses “[A]s a result of the manner in which equation 1 is formulated, it is apparent that as the quality of service increases, . . . the value of the QoS increases” and alternately, that equation 1 can be formulated in a different manner (col. 27, ll. 61-64). Starr also discloses recharacterizing the QoS as an “Inverse QoS” when using this alternative re- formulation (col. 28, ll. 2-4). It should be noted Appellants do not provide a definition of “formula” in the Specification. If Appellants intended the claims to recite “algorithms” there was opportunity to amend the claims during prosecution. We agree with the Examiner’s findings on pages 32 and 33 of the Answer. We find Starr discloses a re-formulation of Equation 1 occurs depending upon a value of one or more of the at least two statistics and modifying the processing of voice information in the packet voice transceiver based upon the at least one voice quality metric, as claimed. Thus, claims 1, 3, 15, and 27 are anticipated by Starr. Rejection of claims 1-47 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 The Examiner concludes that claims 1-7, 9-13, 15-19, 21-25, 27-31, 33-37, 39, 40, and 42-47 are obvious over Starr and Clark. The Examiner finds Clark, like Starr, discloses a formula that has at least two statistical parameters such that when the “parameters vary the formula changes by attaining different values” (Ans. 34). For the reasons set forth above with respect to Starr, we find the weight of the evidence supports the Examiner’s Appeal 2010-007230 Application 10/377,442 5 underlying factual findings and ultimate legal conclusion of obviousness for claims 1-7, 9-13, 15-19, 21-25, 27-31, 33-37, 39, 40, and 42-47. With respect to claims 14, 26, 38, and 41, the Examiner cited McClennon for disclosing muting an audio path of a voice packet based on the at least one voice quality metric (Ans. 27). That is, the Examiner finds Appellants’ muting an audio path is simply canceling an echo from a far end as disclosed by McClennon (id.). Appellants contend McClennon discloses subtracting echo signals, which is not the same as muting, and if it is considered the same, McClennon does not mute the appropriate path (App. Br. 24-25). We do not agree with Appellants. Appellants have not provided reasons why a “minimum amount of signal-dependent loss required” (“sdlossmin”) is not a voice quality metric as claimed (App. Br. 25). We agree with the Examiner’s findings that claim 14 only requires is a muted audio path that is based on a voice quality metric, which is taught by McClennon (Ans. 36). Thus, the Examiner did not err in concluding that claims 14, 26, 38, and 41 are obvious over Starr, Clark, and McClennon. Regarding claims 8, 20, and 32, Appellants contend Yaakov does not overcome the deficiencies of Clark and Starr (App. Br. 23). However, we find no deficiencies with Clark and Starr for the reasons discussed above. Therefore, we sustain the §103 rejection of claims 8, 20, and 32 for the same reasons discussed above regarding the §103 rejection of claim 1 over the combination of Clark and Starr. DECISION The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-47 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is affirmed. Appeal 2010-007230 Application 10/377,442 6 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 llw/peb