Ex Parte Salfati et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardNov 22, 201714090505 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 22, 2017) 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. 14/090,505 11/26/2013 Roni Salfati V224 1098 72623 7590 11/27/2017 MOSFR TAROADA / VON A OF HOT DTNOS OORP EXAMINER 1030 BROAD STREET ZENATI, AMAL S SUITE 203 SHREWSBURY, NJ 07702 ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2656 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 11/27/2017 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 RONI SALFATI and IT AY BIANCO Appeal 2017-007896 Application 14/090,5051 Technology Center 2600 Before LARRY J. HUME, JOYCE CRAIG, and MATTHEW McNEILL, Administrative Patent Judges. HUME, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the final rejection of claims 1 and 3—20. Appellants have previously canceled claim 2. 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 2017-007896 Application 14/090,505 STATEMENT OF THE CASE2 The Invention Appellants' disclosed and claimed inventions relate to "a method and system for recalling and replaying content during a communications session." Spec. 11. Exemplary Claim Claim 1, reproduced below, is representative of the subject matter on appeal (emphases added to contested limitations):3 1. A method for recalling and replaying content during a communications session comprising: detecting a real-time communications session comprising live broadcasted content between two or more participant devices; storing content of the communications session transmitted between the two or more participant devices as the real-time communications session persists; receiving a control request from a first participant device of the two or more participant devices to re-play a portion of the content, wherein the portion of the content is comprises at least one of audio or video content of the communication session; and 2 Our Decision relies upon Appellants' Appeal Brief ("App. Br.," filed Dec. 5, 2016); Reply Brief ("Reply Br.," filed May 1, 2017); Examiner's Answer ("Ans.," mailed March 24, 2017); Final Office Action ("Final Act.," mailed May 6, 2016); and the original Specification ("Spec.," filed Nov. 26, 2013). 3 In the event of further prosecution, we draw the Examiner's attention to the grammatically incorrect phrase "is comprises" as underlined above in claim 1. 2 Appeal 2017-007896 Application 14/090,505 transmitting the portion of the content to all of the two or more participant devices as the real-time communications session persists. Prior Art The Examiner relies upon the following prior art as evidence in rejecting the claims on appeal: Shamilian et al. US 8,108,541 B2 Jan. 31, 2012 ("Shamilian") Yannakopoulos et al. US 2013/0339431 Al Dec. 19, 2013 ("Yannakopoulos") Rejection on Appeal Claims 1 and 3—20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being obvious over the combination of Shamilian and Yannakopoulos. Final Act. 2.4 CLAIM GROUPING Based on Appellants' arguments (App. Br. 5—10), we decide the appeal of the rejection of independent claims 1, 8, and 12 on the basis of claim 1. We decide the appeal of separately argued dependent claims 4—7, 11, 13, 14, 18, and 20, infra. We address remaining dependent claims 3, 9, 10, 15—17, and 19, not argued separately, infra. 4 The Examiner's rejection includes a typographical error in stating the rejection of claims "1, and 3-10" rather than claims "1, and 3-20." Neither the Examiner nor Appellants address this error in the Briefs or Answer. Final Act. 2. 3 Appeal 2017-007896 Application 14/090,505 ISSUES AND ANALYSIS In reaching this decision, we consider all evidence presented and all arguments actually made by Appellants. We do not consider arguments which Appellants could have made but chose not to make in the Briefs so that we deem any such arguments as waived. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv). We disagree with Appellants' arguments with respect to claims 1, 4—8, 11—14, 18, and 20, and we incorporate herein and adopt as our own: (1) the findings and reasons set forth by the Examiner in the action from which this appeal is taken, and (2) the reasons and rebuttals set forth in the Examiner's Answer in response to Appellants' arguments. We incorporate such findings, reasons, and rebuttals herein by reference unless otherwise noted. However, we highlight and address specific findings and arguments for emphasis as follows. 1. Rejection of Claims E 8, and 12 Issue Appellants argue (App. Br. 5—8; Reply Br. 2-4) the Examiner's rejection of independent claims 1,8, and 12 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being obvious over the combination of Shamilian and Yannakopoulos is in error. These contentions present us with the following issue: Did the Examiner err in finding the cited prior art combination teaches or suggests "[a] method for recalling and replaying content during a communications session" that includes, inter alia, the steps of "receiving a control request from a first participant device of the two or more participant devices to re-play a portion of the content, wherein the portion of the content is comprises at least one of audio or video content of the communication 4 Appeal 2017-007896 Application 14/090,505 session," and "transmitting the portion of the content to all of the two or more participant devices as the real-time communications session persists," as recited in claim 1? Analysis Appellants contend Yannakopoulos's "participant may modify the conference stream for viewing by the participant only. The playback is for the individual participant, rather than for all participants." App. Br. 7 (emphasis omitted). Appellants specifically contend "neither Shamilian nor Yannakopoulos can playback to multiple participants. Shamilian does not allow playback to any participant until after the collaboration session has ended. Yannakopoulos allows playback to an individual participant who has come into a meeting late and needs to replay the portion of the conference stream that he or she missed." Id. (emphasis omitted). We note Appellants do not address in their Appeal Brief the Examiner's specific citations to Yannakopoulos, paragraphs 12, 15, and 25 in the Final Office Action. App. Br. 6—7. We agree with the Examiner's finding that Yannakopoulos's collaboration platform systems, that facilitate web conferencing session between participants at computing devices connected within the platform, teach or at least suggest the playback is to "the two or more participant devices," as recited in claim 1. Final Act. 3 (citing Yannakopoulos Tflf 12, 15, and 25). We agree with the Examiner because Yannakopoulos's web conferencing sessions, which allow participants to conduct a number of different time shifting operations during a live web conference session, teach or at least suggest the disputed "receiving" and "transmitting" limitations, as recited in claim 1. Yannakopoulos 112. 5 Appeal 2017-007896 Application 14/090,505 We also agree with the Examiner's finding that Shamilian's video server, which performs a rewind command and streams the modified video program synchronously to all of the clients, teaches, or at least suggests, the disputed limitation "transmitting the portion of the content to all of the two or more participant devices as the real-time communications session persists." Ans. 3^4 (citing Shamilian Fig. 2, col. 2,11. 36—60, col. 4, 11. 36—67, col. 5,11. 15—30,11. 51—66). Under the broadest reasonable interpretation standard,5 we agree with the Examiner's finding because Shamilian's performing a rewind function on a streaming video program, which is then streamed synchronously to all clients, teaches or at least suggests the disputed "transmitting" limitation as recited in claim 1. Shamilian Fig. 2. We are not persuaded by Appellants' arguments in the Reply Brief because they are not responsive to the Examiner's specific rejection, as modified in the Answer by additional findings and clarifications provided by the Examiner.6 Arguments not made are waived. 5 During prosecution, claims must be given their broadest reasonable interpretation when reading claim language in light of the specification as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art. In re Am. Acad, of Sci. Tech. Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Under this standard, we interpret claim terms using "the broadest reasonable meaning of the words in their ordinary usage as they would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art, taking into account whatever enlightenment by way of definitions or otherwise that may be afforded by the written description contained in the applicant's specification." In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054 (Fed. Cir. 1997). 6 We note Appellants did not file a petition to have the Examiner's rejection designated as a new ground of rejection within the designated time period in response to the Examiner's shift in the Answer, nor did Appellants present arguments challenging the Examiner's new finding in the Reply Brief. 6 Appeal 2017-007896 Application 14/090,505 Accordingly, Appellants have not provided sufficient evidence or argument to persuade us of any reversible error in the Examiner's reading of the contested limitations on the cited prior art. Therefore, we sustain the Examiner's obviousness rejection of independent claim 1, and grouped claims 8 and 12, which fall therewith. See Claim Grouping, supra. Further, while Appellants raise additional arguments for patentability of dependent claims 4—7, 11, 13, 14, 18, and 20, and provide no argument against the rejection of claim 15, rejected on the same basis as claim 1, (App. Br. 8—10), we find that the Examiner has rebutted each of those arguments in the Answer by a preponderance of the evidence. Ans. 4—8. Therefore, we adopt the Examiner's findings and underlying reasoning, which we incorporate herein by reference. Consequently, we find no reversible error in the Examiner's rejection of claims 4—7, 11, 13, 14, 18, and 20. In view of the lack of any substantive or separate arguments directed to the obviousness rejection of claims 3, 9, 10, 15—17, and 19 under § 103(a) (see App. Br. 10), we sustain the Examiner's rejection of these claims, as they fall with their respective independent claims. Arguments not made are waived. REPLY BRIEF To the extent Appellants may advance new arguments in the Reply Brief (Reply Br. 2-4) not in response to a shift in the Examiner's position in the Answer, we note arguments raised in a reply brief that were not raised in the appeal brief or are not responsive to arguments raised in the Examiner's 7 Appeal 2017-007896 Application 14/090,505 Answer will not be considered except for good cause, which Appellants have not shown. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.41(b)(2). CONCLUSION The Examiner did not err with respect to the obviousness rejection of claims 1 and 3—20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over the cited prior art combination of record, and we sustain the rejection. DECISION We affirm the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1 and 3—20. 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). See 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(f). AFFIRMED 8 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation