Ex Parte Sai et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 27, 2017

12880970 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 27, 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.
12/880,970 09/13/2010 Krishna Sai 199-0792US 1178
29855 7590
Blank Rome LLP
717 Texas Avenue, Suite 1400
Houston, TX 77002
EXAMINER
GAY, SONIA L
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2651
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/01/2017 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):
hou stonpatents @ blankrome .com
mbrininger @ blankrome. com
smcdermott@blankrome.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte KRISHNA SAI, ALAIN NIMRI, EDWARD BRAKUS,
and JONATHAN GALLMEIER
Appeal 2014-006617
Application 12/880,9701
Technology Center 2600
Before MICHAEL J. STRAUSS, KEVIN C. TROCK, and
DAVID J. CUTITTA, II, Administrative Patent Judges.
TROCK, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Introduction
Appellants seek review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’
Final Rejection of claims 1, 2, 6, 11, 12, 16, 21, 22, and 24-41.2 We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
1 Appellants indicate the Real Party in Interest is Polycom, Incorporated.
App. Br. 3.
2 Claims 3—5, 7—10, 13—15, 17—20, and 23 are cancelled. App. Br. 20-22.
Appeal 2014-006617
Application 12/880,970
Invention
The claimed invention is directed to videoconferencing systems, and
more particularly, to personalize virtual meeting rooms. Abstract.
Exemplary Claim
Exemplary claim 1 is reproduced below with disputed limitations
emphasized:
1. A videoconferencing multipoint control unit
(MCU) configured to communicate with a host user, one or more
guest users, and an administrator, the MCU comprising:
a network interface;
an audio and video module configured to receive audio
and video streams via the network interface from one or more
videoconferencing endpoints, the audio and video streams being
captured by microphones and cameras at corresponding
endpoints;
a server communicatively coupled to the network interface
and configured to receive values for personal virtual meeting
room (VMR) parameters from the host user and values for admin
VMR parameters from the administrator; and
a control module communicatively coupled to the network
interface and the server, the control module configured to
generate a virtual meeting room based on the personal VMR
parameters and the admin VMR parameters, generate a video
stream of the virtual meeting room, and send the video stream of
the virtual meeting room to videoconferencing endpoints of the
one or more guest users via the network interface.
Rejections
Claims 1, 2, 6, 11, 12, 16, 21, 22, 24, 25, 26, 31, and 38 are rejected
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Jeong et al. (US
2
Appeal 2014-006617
Application 12/880,970
2010/0321469 Al; publ. Dec. 23 2010), and Blanchard, III et al. (US
8,145,516 B2; iss. Mar. 27, 2012).
Claim 27 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable
over Jeong, Blanchard, and Walter (US 7,640,301 B2; iss. Dec. 29, 2009).
Claims 28, 29, 35, and 36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Jeong Blanchard, and Steinberg et al. (US
2006/0090073 Al; publ. Apr. 27, 2006).
Claim 30 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable
over Jeong, Blanchard, Steinberg, and Siddique et al. (US 2010/0030578
Al; publ. Feb. 4, 2010).
Claims 32—34, 37, and 39-41 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Jeong Blanchard, and Siddique.
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections and the evidence of
record in light of Appellants’ arguments that the Examiner has erred. We
disagree with Appellants’ arguments and conclusions. We adopt as our
own: (1) the findings and reasons set forth by the Examiner in the Final
Office Action from which this appeal is taken and (2) the findings and
reasons set forth in the Examiner’s Answer. We concur with the conclusions
reached by the Examiner and further highlight specific findings and
argument for emphasis as follows.
Improper Combination
Appellants contend the Examiner improperly combined Jeong and
Blanchard in rejecting the claims. App. Br. 9—12; Reply Br. 2—3.
Appellants argue Blanchard teaches away from the proposed modification
3
Appeal 2014-006617
Application 12/880,970
because Blanchard is expressly critical of using live images such as images
captured with a camera, and that use of video streams such as those used in
Jeong are disadvantageous. App. Br. 9 (citing Blanchard 1:32—60).
A reference may be said to teach away when a person of ordinary
skill, upon reading it, would be discouraged from following the path set out
in the reference, or would be led in a direction divergent from the path taken
by the inventor. Monarch Knitting Mach. Corp. v. Sulzer Morat GmbH, 139
F.3d 877, 885 (Fed. Cir. 1998) {quoting In re Gurley, 27 F.3d 551, 553 (Fed.
Cir. 1994)). It is, however, improper to pick and choose from a reference
only so much of it as will support a given position, to the exclusion of other
parts necessary to the full appreciation of what the reference fairly suggests
to one of ordinary skill in the art. Bausch & Lomb, Inc. v. Barnes-
Hind/Hydrocurve, Inc., 796 F.2d 443, 448 (Fed. Cir. 1986) {quoting In re
Wesslau, 353 F.2d 238, 241 (CCPA 1965)).
Here, the Examiner finds that Blanchard adds a telepresence element
to conventional videoconferencing, such that live voices, images, and still
photos are shared through microphones and webcams to provide the
impression or feeling of being immersed in a videoconference. Ans. 18
(citing Blanchard 1:61—67). The Examiner also finds, and Appellants do not
dispute, that Blanchard, despite disclosing a virtual world with avatars,
provides a detailed description of a suitable computing platform that
includes microphones and a webcam, explaining that participants may
communicate with each other through telephone audio and internet camera
audio/video. Ans. 19-20 (citing Blanchard Figs. 2a, 7; 2:20-28; 4:40-49;
9:24-43). Appellants provide no explanation as to why Blanchard would
include microphones and a webcam in its computing platform if Blanchard
4
Appeal 2014-006617
Application 12/880,970
did not contemplate using them for real-world audio and video input in its
virtual world system.
Accordingly, we agree with the Examiner that Blanchard, when read
as a whole, contemplates using real-world audio and video in its virtual
world system. We, therefore, are not persuaded by Appellants’ argument
that Blanchard teaches away from using video streams such as those taught
by Jeong.
Appellants also argue the proposed combination of Blanchard and
Jeong would render Blanchard unsatisfactory for its intended purpose,
because the whole point of Blanchard’s virtual world meeting room is to
generate a greater sense of presence that cannot be created by a standard
video meeting such as those taught by Jeong. App. Br. 11—12.
The Examiner finds, however, and we agree, Blanchard teaches real­
time videoconferencing with mutual communication between the presenter
and the attendees. Ans. 20 (citing Blanchard 9:44—55). The Examiner finds,
and we agree, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art
to combine Blanchard and Jeong because both arts are analogous and
implement a multipoint control unit with a host or presenter. Id. Combining
the multiparty videoconferencing capabilities of Jeong with the virtual world
meeting room of Blanchard would not render Blanchard inoperable or
unsatisfactory for its intended purpose because, as discussed above,
Blanchard contemplates incorporating real-world audio and video input into
its virtual-world presentation. Appellants’ arguments do not provide
sufficient evidence or a technical line of reasoning to persuade us the
Examiner’s findings constitute error. See In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1470
(Fed. Cir. 1997) (attorney arguments or conclusory statements are
5
Appeal 2014-006617
Application 12/880,970
insufficient to rebut a prima facie case).
Independent Claims 1 and 11
Appellants contend the Examiner erred in rejecting independent claims
1 and 11 because the combination of Jeong and Blanchard does not teach or
suggest a
control module configured to generate a virtual meeting room
based on the personal VMR parameters and the admin VMR
parameters, generate a video stream of the virtual meeting room,
and send the video stream of the virtual meeting room to
videoconferencing endpoints of the one or more guest users via
the network interface,
as recited in independent claim 1 and similarly recited in independent claim
11. App. Br. 12—14. Appellants argue that Blanchard’s events repository
(1302) cannot serve to teach the claimed control module because it transmits
notifications and reminders (1306, 1308) and is not configured to generate a
virtual meeting room based on personal and administrative parameters or a
video stream of a virtual meeting room. App. Br. 13—14.
The Examiner finds, however, and we agree, Blanchard teaches the
broad concept of a control module as claimed. Ans. 21 (citing Blanchard
Fig 4b (406); 7:5—7). The Examiner also finds, and we agree, Blanchard
teaches VMR parameters such as number of attendees, room capacity, and
screen background image with decorated walls or company logo. Final Act.
4 (citing Blanchard 11:14—22, 26—35, 37-41); Ans. 21 (citing Blanchard
10:7—17, 12:1—10). The Examiner also finds, and we agree, Blanchard
teaches generation of a video stream of a virtual meeting room. Final Act. 4
(citing Blanchard Fig. 8, 10:1—25, 11:58—65).
Accordingly, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in finding the
combination of Jeong and Blanchard teaches or suggests a
6
Appeal 2014-006617
Application 12/880,970
control module configured to generate a virtual meeting room
based on the personal VMR parameters and the admin VMR
parameters, generate a video stream of the virtual meeting room,
and send the video stream of the virtual meeting room to
videoconferencing endpoints of the one or more guest users via
the network interface,
as recited in independent claim 1 and similarly recited in independent claim
11. Therefore, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1 and 11.
Independent Claim 21
Appellants contend the Examiner erred rejecting independent claim 21
because the combination of Jeong and Blanchard does not teach or suggest
“receiving a virtual meeting room (VMR) identification from at least one of
the plurality of endpoints,” as recited in independent claim 21. App Br. 15.
Appellants argue that Blanchard’s unique “customer identification” is not a
VMR identification, but rather an identification that is used to keep track of
the resources used by each customer in order for the service provider to
prepare accurate bills. App. Br. 16. We disagree.
The Examiner finds, and we agree, Blanchard teaches the host is given
an identification based on their schedule request, wherein the schedule
request involves the time of the event and the capacity of the virtual room
and is associated with the user identification. Final Act. 9 (citing Blanchard
16:33—39; 12:27—33). The Examiner reasons, and we agree, one of ordinary
skill in the art would recognize that it is the user’s credentials, login
information, logs, and history that differentiate one user from another. Ans.
22 (citing Blanchard 16:1—4).
Accordingly, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred rejecting
independent claim 21 because the combination of Jeong and Blanchard
teaches or suggests “receiving a virtual meeting room (VMR) identification
7
Appeal 2014-006617
Application 12/880,970
from at least one of the plurality of endpoints,” as recited in independent
claim 21. Therefore, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 21.
Dependent Claims 25, 28, 35, and 36
Appellants contend the Examiner erred rejecting dependent claims 25,
28, 35, and 36 because the combination of Jeong and Blanchard does not
teach or suggest personal parameters relating to gathering phase music, or
gathering stage parameters relating to audio or video streams, to be played
during a gathering stage of a videoconference, as recited in those claims.
App Br. 17—18. Appellants argue that neither Blanchard nor Steinberg
discuss or suggest anything about gathering phases of videoconferencing
sessions or gathering phase music. App. Br. 17—18.
The Examiner finds, however, and we agree, the use and display of
gathering phase information such as voice greetings, the name of the host, or
music before a conference starts, is well known in the art. Ans. 23. The
Examiner concludes, and we agree, it would have been obvious to one of
ordinary skill in the art to implement music while waiting for a conference to
start. Id.
Accordingly, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred rejecting
dependent claims 25, 28, 35, and 36. Therefore, we sustain the Examiner’s
rejection of these claims.
Remaining Claims 2, 6, 12, 16, 22, 24, 26, 27, 29—34, and 37—41.
Appellants have not presented separate, substantive arguments with
respect to claims 2, 6, 12, 16, 22, 24, 26, 27, 29-34, and 37—41. See App.
Br. 12—19. Therefore, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in rejecting
these claims. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv) (2014); In re Lovin, 652 F.3d
1349, 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (“We conclude that the Board has reasonably
8
Appeal 2014-006617
Application 12/880,970
interpreted Rule 41.37 to require applicants to articulate more substantive
arguments if they wish for individual claims to be treated separately”).
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of these claims.
DECISION
We AFFIRM the Examiner’s rejections of claims 1, 2, 6, 11, 12, 16,
21,22, and 24-41.
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
9