Ex Parte Leno et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 26, 2017

14058918 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 26, 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.
14/058,918 10/21/2013 Brian Grady Leno V216 5730
72623 7590 06/28/2017
MOSFR TAROADA / VON A OF HOT DTNOS OORP
EXAMINER
1030 BROAD STREET PATEL, PARTHKUMAR
SUITE 203
SHREWSBURY, NJ 07702 ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2468
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/28/2017 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):
docketing@mtiplaw.com
llinardakis @ mtiplaw. com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte BRIAN GRADY LENO and TZAHI EFRATI
Appeal 2017-001188
Application 14/058,9181
Technology Center 2400
Before ROBERT E. NAPPI, LINZY T. McCARTNEY, and
ALEX S. YAP, Administrative Patent Judges.
NAPPI, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the
Examiner’s Final Rejection of claims 1 and 3 through 21, which constitute
all the claims pending in this application. We have jurisdiction under 35
U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Vonage Business Inc.
App. Br. 3.
Appeal 2017-001188
Application 14/058,918
INVENTION
This invention is directed to a method for automating conferencing in
a communication session. See Abstract.
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Claim 1 is representative of the invention and reproduced below.
A method for automating conferencing into a
communication session comprising:
detecting an established communication session
between a first end-user device and a second end-user
device;
notifying a third end-user device associated with the
first end-user device that the established communication
session is available to be joined;
receiving a request from the third end-user device to
join the communication session; and
establishing a conference session with the first end-
user device, the second end user device, and the third end-
user device, wherein establishing the conference session
includes sending an invitation message to the third end-
user device for a conference session; and sending a re­
invitation message to the first end-user device and second-
end-user device for the conference session.
REFERENCES AND REJECTIONS AT ISSUE
The Examiner has rejected claims 1,3,4, and 9 through 12 under
35 U.S.C. § 102(a) as anticipated Raju (US 2013/0227006 Al; Aug. 29,
2013). Ans. 2—6.2
2 Throughout this Decision, we refer to the Supplemental Appeal Brief dated
June 3, 2016; the Reply Brief dated Oct. 25, 2016; Final Office Action
mailed Nov. 23, 2015; and the Examiner’s Answer mailed Aug. 26, 2016.
2
Appeal 2017-001188
Application 14/058,918
The Examiner has rejected claims 5,1, and 14 through 21 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Raju and Rudkowski et al. (US
8,970,660 Bl; Mar. 3, 2015). Ans. 7-16.
The Examiner has rejected claims 6 and 13 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as unpatentable over Raju and Lee et al. (US 2007/0002779 Al; Jan. 4,
2007). Ans. 16-17.
The Examiner has rejected claim 8 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Raju, Rudkowski, and Koren et al. (US 2011/0149810 Al;
June 23, 2011). Ans. 17—18.
ISSUES
Independent claim 1.
Appellants’ arguments, directed to claim 1 on pages 6 through 8 of
the Appeal Brief and pages 2 through 5 of the Reply Brief, present us with
this issue: did the Examiner err in finding Raju teaches establishing a
conference session with the first, second, and third end-user devices recited
in representative claim 1?
Dependent claims 5, 7.
Appellants’ arguments, directed to representative claim 5 on pages 8
through 10 of the Appeal Brief, present us with this issue: did the Examiner
err in finding that the combination of Raju and Rudkowski teach a
communication session is established by a proxy server and establishing a
conference session includes routing the session to a conference server as
recited in representative claim 5.
3
Appeal 2017-001188
Application 14/058,918
Claims 14 through 21.
Appellants’ arguments, directed to representative claim 14 on pages
10 and 11 of the Appeal Brief, present us with this issue: did the Examiner
err in finding that the combination of Raju and Rudkowski teach a
communication session is established by a proxy server and establishing a
conference with a conference server, where the proxy server is different
from the conference server as recited in representative claim 14?
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed Appellants’ arguments in the Appeal Brief and the
Reply Brief, the Examiner’s rejections, and the Examiner’s response to
Appellants’ arguments. Appellants’ arguments have not persuaded us of
error in the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1 and 3 through 21.
Independent claim 1
Appellants’ arguments directed to claim 1 states:
Raju teaches that after identifying a call with User A and User B,
the method identifies any parties (e.g., User C) that are approved
to join the session based on information previously provided by
both User A and User B (Raju, paragraph [0051 ]). The approved
party, User C is notified of the call between User A and User B
(Id.). If User C wants to join the session, a communication
service provider includes User C in the communication session
in any suitable manner (Raju, paragraph [0054]). In other words,
User C is added to the currently established communication
session.
In contrast, in embodiments consistent with the claimed
invention detects a call between two user devices. Paragraph
[0050] of Appellants' specification teaches, a third user is
notified of one or more communication sessions, and may select
to join a prospective conference session. The communication
sessions between two users are detected and if the third user
4
Appeal 2017-001188
Application 14/058,918
wishes to join, the communication session will be ended and an
as yet un-established conference session will be established. . . .
In addition, the first and second end-user devices receive a re­
invitation (i.e., a re-invite signal to form the conference session).
Thus, the third device is not simply including the third end-user
device in the existing call. Rather, a new conference session is
initiated and established that includes the first, second, and third
end-user devices.
App. Br. 7.
The Examiner provides a comprehensive response to Appellants’
arguments on pages 2 through 7 of the Answer. The Examiner identifies
that Raju teaches establishing a conference session in that Raju teaches a
user may be added to an existing communication session between two users
and that the new user may be added by a suitable manner using conventional
calling technique. Answer 3—7.
We concur with the Examiner and adopt the Examiner’s rationale. In
addition, we note that Appellants’ argument, on page 7 of the Appeal Brief,
that Raj does not teach “the communication session [existing session
between two users] will be ended and an as yet un-established conference
session will be established,” is not commensurate with the scope of claim 1.
Specifically, claim 1 does not recite ending the existing communication
session. Further, we note that Appellants’ Specification discusses a
conference session as one in which three users are in communication. See,
e.g., para’s 5 through 7; see also Raju para. 3. Thus, we see Raju’s teaching
of adding the third user to the existing communication session as creating a
conference session; we note this is also consistent with Raju’s disclosure in
paragraphs 3 and 55 that the third person is added through a conference.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1 and claims 3, 4,
and 9 through 12, grouped with claim 1.
5
Appeal 2017-001188
Application 14/058,918
Dependent claims 5 and 7.
Appellants argue that Raju does not teach routing from a proxy server
to conference server where a communication session was established on the
proxy server. App. Br. 9. Appellants state Rudkowski teaches “establishing
a conference session and add[ing] devices to the conference session.” Id
(emphasis omitted). Further, Appellants’ assert that there is no permissible
combination of the teachings to arrive at the claimed invention. Finally,
Appellants assert that, the Examiner’s rationale to combine the teachings
solves a different problem than described in Appellants’ Specification. App.
Br. 9-10.
The Examiner responds by finding that Rudkowski teaches or
suggests a proxy server (media module item 108b or call processing module
108a, both of which is part of item 106) used to establish a connection
between the end point device (102a) and the conference session module
(item 108c, which is part of item 106). Answer 7 and 8. Further, the
Examiner finds that the conference center module connects to the various
end points participating in the call. Id. We have reviewed the cited teaching
in Rudkowski and concur with the Examiner. Claim 5 recites the
communication session is established via a proxy server, and that the
communications session is routed to a conference server, both of which the
Examiner has shown are taught by Rudkowski. In as much as Appellants’
are asserting the skilled artisan would not combine Raju and Rudkowski, we
concur with the Examiner’s rationale. Further, we note that Raju, paragraph
55, teaches using conventional methods of conferencing, which would
suggest that systems such as Rudkowski could be combined, thus the
combination is nothing more than using known systems for their known
6
Appeal 2017-001188
Application 14/058,918
functions. Accordingly, Appellants’ arguments have not persuaded us of
error in the Examiner’s rejection of claim 5 and claim 7 grouped with claim
5.
Claims 14 through 21.
Appellants argue that Raju fails to teach the communication session
established via a proxy server and the conference session is established by a
conference server where the proxy server and the signaling server is
different from the conference server. App Br. 10. Further, Appellants
reiterate the arguments made with respect to claims 1 and 5. App. Br. 11.
The Examiner responds making the same findings as discussed above
with respect to claims 1 and 5. Further, the Examiner notes that Rudkowski
teaches or suggests that the functions of the proxy and conference modules
can may be distributed among a plurality of computing devices. Answer 10-
11. We have reviewed the Examiner’s findings and the teachings of
Rudkowski and we concur. We note that column 9, line 4 to 7 of
Rudkowski support the Examiner’s findings of distributed functionality.
Thus, Appellants’ arguments have not persuaded us of error in the rejection
of claim 14 and claims 15 through 21 grouped with claim 14.
Claims 6, 8, and 13
Appellants’ arguments directed to these claims assert that the
rejection is in error for the reasons asserted with respect to claim 1 and that
the additional teachings of Lee or Rudkowski and Koren do not make up for
the deficiencies in the rejection of claim 1. App. Br. 12—13. As Appellants’
arguments directed to the rejection of claim 1 have not persuaded us of error
in the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1, Le_we find no deficiencies in the
7
Appeal 2017-001188
Application 14/058,918
rejection of claim 1, and we are also not persuaded of error in the rejections
of claims 6, 8, and 13.
DECISION
We sustain the Examiner’s rejections of claims 1 and 3 through 21
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
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
8