Ex Parte Lin et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardDec 16, 201311591723 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 16, 2013) 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. 11/591,723 11/01/2006 Ming Lin 13865-12 8851 93823 7590 12/17/2013 BGL/Huawei P.O. Box 10395 Chicago, IL 60610 EXAMINER HARLEY, JASON A ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2468 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 12/17/2013 PAPER 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. PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte MING LIN and FANG YIN ____________ Appeal 2011-007473 Application 11/591,7231 Technology Center 2400 ____________ Before CARLA M. KRIVAK, CAROLYN D. THOMAS, and DANIEL N. FISHMAN, Administrative Patent Judges. THOMAS, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL 1 The real party in interest is Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd. Appeal 2011-007473 Application 11/591,723 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the Examiner’s final decision rejecting claims 1-25, which are all the claims pending in the application. We have jurisdiction over the appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM. The present invention relates generally to reducing the network resource requirement for multimedia communications. See Spec. ¶ [0001]. Claim 1 is representative: 1. A method for setting up a multimedia session having a gateway module and a gateway controller module, the method comprising: receiving a call setup message by the gateway controller module from a first terminal for setting up the multimedia session with a second terminal; exchanging at least one call reference between the gateway controller module and gateway module based on the call setup message for identifying the multimedia session; exchanging one or more session setup messages through a communication tunnel between the gateway module and gateway controller module for allocating resources for the multimedia session with the call reference including a predetermined location within the session setup messages for containing session information; and initiating the multimedia session between the first and second terminals with the allocated resources. Appeal 2011-007473 Application 11/591,723 3 Appellants appeal the following rejections: R1. Claims 1-6, 9-16, and 18-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being anticipated by Yuan (U.S. Patent Pub. 2004/0034793 A1, published Feb. 19, 2004); and R2. Claims 7, 8, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Yuan and Le (U.S. 7,158,491 B1, Jan. 2, 2007). Claim Groupings Based on Appellants’ arguments in the Appeal Brief, we will decide the appeal on the basis of claim 1 as set forth below. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii). ANALYSIS Claims 1-6, 9-16, 18-25 Issue: Did the Examiner err in finding that Yuan discloses both a gateway module and a gateway controller module, as set forth in the claimd invention? Appellants contend “Yuan utterly fails to teach or suggest the exchanging operation as presently recited in Claim 1 (i.e., between a gateway module and a gateway controller)” (App. Br. 8). Appellants further contend that “Yuan lacks any mention of exchanging the signaling message based on the call setup message as presently recited” (id.). We disagree with Appellants. We refer to, rely on, and adopt the Examiner’s findings and conclusions set forth in the Answer (Ans. 16-51). Our discussions here will be limited to the following points of emphasis. Appeal 2011-007473 Application 11/591,723 4 The Examiner found that Yuan discloses “that the communicating devices use IP address location information to set up a call using a set up message[]. The set up message[] is the first information packet that a switch sends to the called terminal” (Ans. 19) (emphasis omitted). The Examiner further found that “a proxy router, firewall server, and switch [are] known as gateway controller modules” (id.) (emphasis omitted). Specifically, Yuan discloses “a method for transmitting information packets across network firewalls” (Abstract), “[a] header data field in the information packet will include source and destination addresses” (¶ [0010]), and “the first setup message must be sent to the called party from the switching equipment (e.g., a soft-switch)” (¶ [0020]). Furthermore, Yuan discloses that “the message flow us[es] the Media Gateway Control Protocol (MGCP) for signaling message flow for penetrating firewalls with an APS deployed inside the firewalls” (¶ [0066]) (see also (¶¶ [0080]–[0083] and Figs. 2, 7, and 9). In Yuan, “[t]he APS 1 forwards the setup message to the Media Proxy Router” (¶ [0080]). In other words, Yuan discloses a method wherein a trusted entity (i.e., a Media Proxy Router, soft switch, or combination of the two), using a control protocol, transmits signaling messages to create a pinhole through the firewall to transmit media information packets. We find that Yuan’s combination Media Proxy Router/soft switch acts as a controller which communicates with the APS (gateway module) inside the firewall. Furthermore, in Yuan, the set up message is exchanged between the end terminals, the APS, and the Media Proxy Router, e.g., between a gateway module and a gateway controller module, and a pinhole is created through the firewall as a result thereof. We agree with the Examiner that the claimed Appeal 2011-007473 Application 11/591,723 5 first/second terminals, gateway controller module, and gateway module read on Yuan’s end terminals, APS, and Media Proxy Router/soft switch, respectively, as the functionalities are consistent therewith. While Appellants are correct that an anticipation rejection may be improper when combining different embodiments from a single reference (see Application of Arkley, 455 F.2d 586, 587-88 (CCPA 1972)) (App. Br. 17), we note that in this case the Examiner is not combining teachings from different embodiments, but rather using the different embodiments separately to illustrate the communication flow of messages between the gateway module and the gateway controller module. For at least the reasons noted above, we sustain the Examiner’s anticipation rejection of claims 1-6, 9-16, and 18-25. Claims 7, 8, and 17 Here, Appellants merely contend that “Ye fails to remedy the foregoing shortcomings of Yaun” (App. Br. 27). As no such shortcomings were found, we find Appellants’ arguments unpersuasive. Therefore, the obviousness rejection of claims 7, 8, and 17 is sustained. DECISION We affirm the Examiner’s §§ 102(b) and § 103(a) rejections. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv). AFFIRMED Appeal 2011-007473 Application 11/591,723 6 msc Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation