Ex Parte Rajan et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 30, 2016

12051743 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 30, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/051,743 03/19/2008
32968 7590 10/04/2016
KYOCERA INTERNATIONAL INC
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY DEPARTMENT
8611 Balboa Ave
SAN DIEGO, CA 92123
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Muralidhar RAJAN
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.
UTL00802 1074
EXAMINER
PATEL, PARTHKUMAR
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2468
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
10/04/2016 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):
KII-USPatents@kyocera.com
Kathleen.Connell@kyocera.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte MURALIDHAR RAJAN, SANTOSH PRABHU, and
SACHIN D. NAIK
Appeal2014-000168
Application 12/051,743
Technology Center 2400
Before ELENI MANTIS MERCADER, CARL W. WHITEHEAD JR., and
JEFFREYS. SMITH, Administrative Patent Judges.
MANTIS MERCADER, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal2014-000168
Application 12/051,743
STATEMENT OF CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
Final Rejection of claims 1, 3-8, 11, 13-15, and 17-19. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
THE INVENTION
The claimed invention is directed to a wireless voice over Internet
Protocol (VOIP) system having a VOIP-enabled wireless communication
device (WeD) and a VOIP gateway. Abstract.
Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject
matter:
A system, comprising:
a wireless communication device having
a short-range wireless interface and a client configured to
place and receive voice over Internet Protocol (VOIP) calls
through the short-range wireless interface,
a wide-area cellular network interface, and
a user interface for selecting, after a user has initiated a
call from the wireless communication device, either the short-
range wireless interface or the wide-area cellular network
interface to place and receive calls; and
a gateway including a Short-range wireless interface
configured to communicate with the wireless communication
device, a network interface configured to communicate with the
Internet, a VOIP service client configured to communicate with
a VOIP service by way of the network interface, and a proxy
server configured to route the VOIP calls through the Short-
range wireless interface of the gateway and act as an interface
between the client on the wireless communication device and the
VOIP service client.
2
Appeal2014-000168
Application 12/051,743
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Barze gar
Babbar
Wilhoite
Giesecke
Sohn
us 7,742,498
US 2005/0083899 Al
US 2006/0116127 Al
US 2008/0160955 Al
Korean Pub.
20020014601
REJECTIONS
The Examiner made the following rejections:
June 22, 2010
Apr. 21, 2005
June 1, 2006
July 3, 2008
Oct. 19, 2002
Claims 1, 3-8, 11, 13-15, and 17-19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C §
103 (a) as being unpatentable over Wilhoite in view of Sohn and Giesecke.
ANALYSIS
We adopt the Examiner's findings in the Answer and Final Action.
We add the following for emphasis.
Appellants argue that the built-in Bluetooth modem of mobile phone
terminal 11 of Sohn cannot be reasonably interpreted as "a client configured
to place and receive voice over Internet Protocol (VOIP) calls," as recited in
claim 1 (App. Br. 10). Appellants argue that if the mobile phone terminal 11
of Sohn did include a VOIP client that was in communication with a VOIP
service client in Bluetooth-Intemet phone gateway 12, then there would be
no need for Bluetooth-Intemet phone gateway 12 to convert the messages
received from mobile phone terminal 11 from a Bluetooth format to a VOIP
format (App. Br. 10).
3
Appeal2014-000168
Application 12/051,743
We do not agree. We agree with the Examiner that Sohn teaches a
cellular phone coupled with internet phone gateway under wireless internet
servicing system which incorporates VOIP communication supporting
protocols like H.323, SIP, media gateway control protocol (MGCP) in order
for a telephone call setup and for communication to occur between end
points (see pg. 5, 11. 40-50 and pg. 6, 11. 1-11) (Ans. 2). We also agree with
the Examiner that the internet telephony system is capable of transmitting a
message (Ans. 3; pg. 7, 11. 23-29).
Accordingly, we affirm the Examiner's rejection of claim 1 and for
the same reasons the Examiner's rejections of claims 3-8, 11, 13-15, and
17-19.
DECISION
For the above reasons, the Examiner's rejection of claims 1, 3-8, 11,
13-15, and 1 7-19 is affirmed.
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
4