Ex Parte Vadhri

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 23, 2017

11611764 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 23, 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.
11/611,764 12/15/2006 Srinivas Vadhri P2395.10194US01 4934
132897 7590 02/27/2017
Maschoff Brennan/ PayPal
1389 Center Drive, Ste 300
Park City, UT 84098
EXAMINER
HARLEY, JASON A
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2468
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/27/2017 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):
docket @ mabr. com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte SRINIVAS VADHRI
Appeal 2016-005022
Application 11/611,764
Technology Center 2400
Before JAMES R. HUGHES, ERIC S. FRAHM, and JOHN D. HAMANN,
Administrative Patent Judges.
FRAHM, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal 2010-003230022
Application 11/045,514
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
Final Rejection of claims 1—6, 8—10, 12, 14—23, 25—38, and 40-43, which
constitute all the claims pending in this application. Claims 7, 11, 13, 24,
and 39 have been canceled. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
Exemplary Claim
Claims 1, 20, and 38 are independent and all pertain to a method (see
e.g., claim 20), system with one or more processors to perform a method
(see e.g., claim 1), and a non-transitory computer-readable medium
including instructions to cause a machine to perform a method (see e.g.,
claim 38) for making appointments for teleconferences using Voice over
Internet Protocol (VoIP) in addition to a public switched telephone network
(PSTN) connection (Spec. Tflf 1,2; Abs.; Title). An understanding of the
invention can be derived from a reading of exemplary claim 1, which is
reproduced below with emphases added:
1. A system comprising:
one or more computer processors configured to:
receive appointment data from an organizer of a
teleconference, the appointment data including parameters
corresponding to participants scheduled to join the
teleconference, the parameters specifying, for each of the
participants, whether the orsanizer has allowed the participant
to join the teleconference over a Voice over IP (VoIP) connection
in addition to a public switched telephone (PSTN) connection;
store the appointment data in a calendaring application;
and
2
Appeal 2010-003230022
Application 11/045,514
enable each of the participants to establish at least one of
a VoIP connection and a PSTN connection to the teleconference
based on the values of the parameters.
Remaining independent claims 20 and 38 recite similar limitations as
recited in claim 1.
The Examiner’s Rejections
(1) The Examiner rejected claims 1, 4, 6, 8—10, 14—16, 18, 20, 21, 23,
26, 28—32, 34, 36—38, and 40-43 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over the combination of Beyda (US 2003/0233416 Al;
published Dec. 18, 2003) and Meyerson et al. (US 2003/0058806 Al;
published Mar. 27, 2003) (“Meyerson”). Final Act. 3—10.
(2) The Examiner rejected claims 3 and 12 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over the combination of Beyda, Meyerson, and Turner
(US 2005/0238156 Al; published Oct. 27, 2005). Final Act. 10-11.
(3) The Examiner rejected claims 5, 17, 22, and 33 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Beyda, Meyerson,
and Tanigawa et al. (US 2004/0001480 Al; published Jan. 1, 2004)
(“Tanigawa”). Final Act. 11—12.
(4) The Examiner rejected claims 19, 25, and 35 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Beyda, Meyerson,
and Kamijo et al. (US 2003/0195928 Al; published Oct. 16, 2003)
(“Kamijo”). Final Act. 12—13.
3
Appeal 2010-003230022
Application 11/045,514
Principal Issue on Appeal
Based on Appellant’s arguments in the briefs (App. Br. 7—12; Reply
Br. 1—3) in response to the Examiner’s rejections (Final Act. 3—13), the
following principal issue is presented on appeal:1
Did the Examiner err in rejecting (i) claims 1, 2, 4, 6, 8—10, 14—16,
18, 20, 21, 23, 26, 28—32, 36—38, and 40-43 over the combination of Bey da
and Meyerson; and (ii) claims 3, 5, 12, 17, 19, 22, 25, 33, and 35 over the
same base combination modified by various tertiary references, because the
base combination fails to teach or suggest the disputed limitations of a
system configured to permit participants to schedule a teleconference by
appointment using a VoIP connection and/or a PSTN connection, as recited
in representative independent claim 1?
1 Appellant argues independent claims 1, 4, 6, 8—10, 14—16, 18, 20, 21, 23,
26, 28—32, 34, 36—38, and 40-43 as a group, and argues only the merits of
claims 1, 20, and 38 (App. Br. 8—10), relying on these arguments for the
patentability of the remaining claims (see App. Br. 10—11). Independent
claims 1, 20, and 38 each recite similar limitations pertaining to a system
configured to permit participants to schedule a teleconference by
appointment using a VoIP connection and/or a PSTN connection.
Accordingly, we select claim 1 as representative of the group of claims 1, 4,
6, 8-10, 14—16, 18, 20, 21, 23, 26, 28-32, 34, 36-38, and 40-43 rejected
over Beyda and Meyerson. Because (i) Appellant relies on the arguments
presented as to claims 1, 20, and 38 for the patentability of the remaining
claims (see App. Br. 10-11), and (ii) the rejection of claims 3, 5, 12, 17, 19,
22, 25, 33, and 35 (which depend from respective ones of claims 1, 20, and
38) relies upon the same base combination used for claim 1, we decide the
outcome of claims 3, 5, 12, 17, 19, 22, 25, 33, and 35 on the same basis as
representative independent claim 1.
4
Appeal 2010-003230022
Application 11/045,514
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections (Final Act. 3—13) in light
of Appellant’s contentions in the Appeal Brief (App. Br. 7—12) and the
Reply Brief (Reply Br. 1—3) that the Examiner has erred, as well as the
Examiner’s response to Appellant’s arguments in the Appeal Brief (Ans. 4—
7).
We disagree with Appellant’s arguments as to independent claims 1,
20, and 38. With regard to representative independent claim 1, we adopt as
our own (1) the findings and reasons set forth by the Examiner in the action
from which this appeal is taken (Final Act. 3—4), and (2) the reasons set forth
by the Examiner in the Examiner’s Answer in response to the Appellant’s
Appeal Brief (Ans. 4 and 6—7). We highlight and amplify certain teachings
and suggestions of the references as follows.
Appellant’s arguments presented as to each individual reference (see
Br. 8—10; Reply Br. 2—3) are not persuasive inasmuch as the Examiner relies
on a properly made combination of Beyda and Meyerson to support the
conclusion of obviousness of the subject matter of independent claims 1, 20,
and 38. Appellant has not rebutted or otherwise shown the Examiner’s
explanation of the combination of the collective teachings and suggestions
of the applied references (see Ans. 4 and 6—7) made in response to the
Appellant’s arguments in the Appeal Brief (regarding the references
individually or in pairs) to be in error. Appellant’s Reply Brief does not
convince us otherwise.
We note that each reference cited by the Examiner must be read, not
in isolation, but for what it fairly teaches in combination with the prior art as
a whole. See In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986)
5
Appeal 2010-003230022
Application 11/045,514
(finding one cannot show non-obviousness by attacking references
individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references).
In this light, Appellant’s arguments as to representative independent claim 1
(App. Br. 9—10; Reply Br. 2—3) concerning the individual shortcomings in
the teachings of Beyda and Meyerson are not persuasive, and are not
convincing of the non-obviousness of the claimed invention set forth in
representative independent claim 1.
We agree with the Examiner (Final Act. 3^4; Ans. 4) that Beyda
(1144 and 46; Fig. 6, flow diagram) teaches a calendar application 130 for
scheduling a teleconference having parameters for specifying if instant
messaging (IM) is available in addition to a PSTN connection. We also
agree with the Examiner (Final Act. 4; Ans. 6) that Meyerson (135) teaches
establishing either a VoIP connection or a PSTN connection.
In view of the foregoing, we sustain the Examiner’s obviousness
rejection of representative independent claim 1, as well as claims 2, 4, 6, 8—
10, 14—16, 18, 20, 21, 23, 26, 28-32, 34, 36-38, and 40-A3 grouped
therewith. For similar reasons, and because (i) claims 3, 5, 12, 17, 19, 22,
23, 25, 33, and 35 each ultimately depend from claims 1, 20, and 38,
therefore contain all of the salient limitations; and (ii) Appellant argues
claims 3, 5, 12, 17, 19, 22, 23, 25, 33, and 35 for the same reasons as claims
1, 20, and 38 (see App. Br. 10-11), we also sustain the Examiner’s
obviousness rejection of dependent claims 3, 5, 12, 17, 19, 22, 23, 25, 33,
and 35.
6
Appeal 2010-003230022
Application 11/045,514
CONCLUSION
The Examiner did not err in rejecting (i) claims 1, 2, 4, 6, 8—10, 14—
16, 18, 20, 21, 23, 26, 28—32, 36—38, and 40-43 over the combination of
Beyda and Meyerson; and (ii) claims 3, 5, 12, 17, 19, 22, 25, 33, and 35 over
the same base combination modified by various tertiary references, because
the base combination teaches or suggests the disputed limitations of a system
configured to permit participants to schedule a teleconference by
appointment using a VoIP connection and/or a PSTN connection, as recited
in representative independent claim 1.
DECISION
The Examiner’s rejections of claims 1—6, 8—10, 12, 14—23, 25—38, and
40-43 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) are 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
7