Ex Parte Xia

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

May 16, 2017

11892922 (P.T.A.B. May. 16, 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.
11/892,922 08/28/2007 Muqiang Xia 4202-22800 3365
97698 7590 05/18/2017
Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd.
c/o Conley Rose, P.C.
5601 Granite Parkway, Suite 500
Plano, TX 75024
EXAMINER
COSTIN, JEREMY M
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2413
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/18/2017 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):
dallaspatents@dfw.conleyrose.com
uspatent@huawei.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte MUQIANG XIA
Appeal 2016-007019
Application 11/892,922
Technology Center 2400
Before STEPHEN C. SIU, DENISE M. POTHIER, and
IRVIN E. BRANCH, Administrative Patent Judges.
POTHIER, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
Final Rejection of claims 1—3, 10, 15, and 28, which are all the claims
currently pending. Br. 3.1 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We previously affirmed the rejections of claims 1—12, 15—21, and
24—29. Ex parte Xia, No. 2012-007748, 2014 WL 6737844 (PTAB
1 Throughout this opinion, we refer to (1) the Final Action (Final Act.)
mailed July 10, 2015, (2) the Appeal Brief (App. Br.) filed January 11, 2016,
and (3) the Examiner’s Answer (Ans.) mailed April 25, 2016.
Appeal 2016-007019
Application 11/892,922
November 28, 2014). Independent claims 1 and 28 have been amended;
other claims have been canceled. Br. 3. The Examiner presents new
rejections for the claims.
We affirm.
Invention
Appellant’s invention relates to a method for Internet Protocol-based
(IP-based) service transport, so that services of voice, facsimile, and data,
may be set up and transferred successfully over an IP bearer while saving
transport bandwidth. See Spec. 116.
Claim 1 is reproduced below with emphasis:
1. A method for Internet Protocol-based service transport, comprising:
negotiating, by a calling media gateway controller, with a called
media gateway controller, a first codec scheme for service transport
before a call is established',
after the call is established, initiating, by the calling media gateway
controller, a request for detecting a characteristic signaling relating to
a service to a calling media gateway;
receiving, by the calling media gateway controller, the
characteristic signaling relating to the service from the calling media
gateway, wherein the characteristic signaling is a V21 signaling;
determining, by the calling media gateway controller, that the
service related to the V21 signaling is a fax service according to the
V21 signaling; and
switching, by the calling media gateway controller, the first codec
scheme to a G. 711 Redundant codec scheme or a T.38 codec scheme,
wherein the switching step comprises:
sending, by the calling media gateway controller, an application
transport message that carries a G.711 Redundant codec scheme or a
T.38 codec scheme to the called media gateway controller, to inform
the called media gateway controller to switch the first codec scheme
to the G.711 Redundant codec scheme or the T.38 codec scheme.
2
Appeal 2016-007019
Application 11/892,922
The Examiner relies on the following as evidence of unpatentability:
Baumann ’008
Baumann ’ 194
Ma
US 2003/0118008 A1 June 26, 2003
WO 2004/045182 Al2 May 27, 2004
WO 2005/053232 Al3 June 9, 2005
The Rejections
Claims 1—3, 15, and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Ma and Baumann ’194. Final Act. 2—8.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Ma, Baumann ’194, and Baumann ’008. Final Act. 9-10.
OBVIOUSNESS REJECTION OVER MA AND BAUMANN
Regarding independent claim l,4 the Examiner finds Ma teaches many
of its limitations, turning to Baumann ’ 194 in combination with Ma to teach
the recited “sending” step of the “switching . . . the first codec scheme”
limitation. Final Act. 2—5 (citing Ma^Hf 17, 61, 62, 64, 65, 66, 80, 85, Figs.
5—6 and Baumann ’194 || 22, 24, 27, 48, Fig. 2).
Appellant disputes two limitations in claim 1— namely the recited
“negotiating” and “switching” steps. Br. 7—9. Appellant argues the
Examiner relies on Ma to teach both these steps. Br. 9 (citing Ma H 61, 66,
2 The Examiner states US 2006/0013194 Al, published January 19, 2006,
“is being used as an official translation” of this document. Final Act. 2.
Absent evidence to the contrary, we presume this document is a proper
translation of WO 2004/045182 Al.
3 The Examiner states US 2006/0285171 Al, published December 21, 2006,
“is being used as an official translation” of this document. Final Act. 2.
Absent evidence to the contrary, we presume this document is a proper
translation of WO 2005/053232 Al.
4 Claims 1—3, 15, and 28 are argued as group. Br. 7—11. We select claim 1
as representative. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv).
3
Appeal 2016-007019
Application 11/892,922
85, Figs. 5—6). In particular, Appellant asserts Ma’s negotiated codec
(coder/decoder) scheme is a T.38 codec scheme that replaces the codec
mode of a fax signal but does not switch the negotiated codec scheme to the
T.38 scheme as recited. Br. 9—11 (reproducing Ma Tflf 60—61, 65—66, 85,
Figs. 5—6). Appellant contends Baumann ’194 does not cure the purported
deficiencies. Br. 11.
ISSUES
Under § 103, has the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1 by finding
Ma and Baumann ’194 collectively would have taught or suggested:
(I) “negotiating, by a calling media gateway controller, with a called
media gateway controller, a first codec scheme for service transport before a
call is established” and
(II) “switching, by the calling media gateway controller, the first
codec scheme to a G.711 Redundant codec scheme or a T.38 codec
scheme”?
ANALYSIS
I.
Based on the record before us, we find no error in the Examiner’s
rejection of independent claim 1, which calls for “negotiating, by a calling
media gateway controller, with a called media gateway controller, a first
codec scheme for service transport before a call is established.” The
Examiner relies on Ma to teach this limitation. Final Act. 3 and Ans. 3^4
(both citing Ma 161, Fig. 5). Ma teaches a calling media gateway controller
(MGC) negotiates both voice and fax codec modes with a called MGC based
4
Appeal 2016-007019
Application 11/892,922
on certain criteria. Mat 61, Fig. 5. The Examiner also states and we agree
Ma’s “negotiation transpires between endpoints such that the claim
limitations of negotiating are met.” Ans. 4; see also Ma H 62—64. As such,
Ma teaches “negotiating ... a first codec scheme for service transport” as
recited.
Moreover, Figure 5 of Ma shows that the above discussed
negotiations occur prior to a session between two parties (e.g., “before a call
is established” as recited). See Ma, Fig. 5 (showing steps 1—3 of the
“Negotiation of Voice and Fax Codec Modes” preceding steps 4—8 of the
“Session between Two Parties.”); see also id. H 32—33. This Figure 5
embodiment is distinguishable from the prior art embodiment discussed in
Ma (i.e., Figure 4), where the fax codec mode negotiation occurs after the
session between two parties has commenced. See Ma H 7, 11—14, Fig. 4.
Ma therefore teaches negotiating a first codec scheme for service transport
between calling and called MGCs “before a call is established” as recited in
claim 1.
II.
Next, Appellant argues Ma’s negotiated codec scheme (i.e., a T.38
codec scheme) replaces a codec mode of a fax signal but does not switch the
negotiated codec scheme to the T.38 scheme. Br. 9—11 (quoting Ma
11 60-61, 65—66, and 85 and reproducing Ma, Figs. 5—6). Appellant
contends that the negotiated codec mode is already T.38 codec mode and
does not switch when the fax signal codec mode is replaced. See Br. 11
(quoting Ma 1 66). We are not persuaded.
At the outset, we note the Examiner relies on both Ma and
Baumann ’194 to teach the recited “switching” step in its entirety. Final
5
Appeal 2016-007019
Application 11/892,922
Act. 4—5. The findings related to Baumann ’ 194 are undisputed. See Br.
7—11. We thus confine our discussion to Ma and the Examiner’s findings
related to the “switching” step. Specifically, the Examiner finds that Ma
teaches the disputed step of “switching, by the calling media gateway
controller, the first codec scheme to a G.711 Redundant codec scheme or a
T.38 codec scheme.” Final Act. 4 (citing Ma H 66, 85, Figs. 5—6).
Although Ma teaches T.38 is used for the fax codec mode “[i]n this
embodiment” (Ma 162), Ma further notes the fax codec mode is preferably
either G.711 or T.38 codec (id. 134) and the fax codec mode “may be T.38
or the transparent transmission” (id. 1 60 (emphasis added)). As such, Ma is
not limited to a negotiated T.38 codec mode. See id. H 34, 60-61.
Additionally, Ma teaches explicitly “the fax codec mode is switched to
T.38” or “the fax codec mode is switched to the G.711 transparent
transmission.” Ma H 70-71, cited in Ans. 5. Thus, even if Ma teaches a
scenario where the fax codec mode is negotiated as T.38 (see id. 1 66), Ma
suggests a scenario where the negotiated codec scheme switches to G.711—
one of the two possible, switched codec schemes recited in claim 1. See id.
60-61,71. Ma also teaches a Modify command is sent “based upon a
negotiated fax codec mode, so as to modify the codec mode” and modifying
(e.g., switching) “the codec mode to T.38.” Id., p. 5, claim 1, step 2; id.,
11 66—67, Fig. 5, cited in Ans. 4.
Even more, the Examiner describes a scenario taught by Ma where the
MGC switches the voice channel to the T.38 codec mode. Ans. 4—5 (citing
Ma 1 85). Ma teaches a process of detecting an event signal (e.g., the start
of a fax) that includes step 50 where the MGC switches the voice channel
between media gateways (MGs) to the T.38 mode. Ma H 74, 80, 85, Fig. 6.
6
Appeal 2016-007019
Application 11/892,922
That is, as explained by the Examiner, “the first session is started wherein a
voice channel uses the negotiated voice codec [scheme], which is then
switched to a FAX codec (i.e.[,] at least T.38 is disclosed by Ma), for a FAX
between the two parties.” Ans. 5. Given that the recited “first codec
scheme” is not specifically recited as a fax codec scheme, we agree with the
Examiner that this portion of Ma further teaches “switching . . . the first
codec scheme to ... a T.38 codec scheme” as recited.
For the foregoing reasons, Appellant has not persuaded us of error in
the rejection of independent claim 1 and claims 2, 3, 15, and 285 not
separately argued (Br. 7—11).
THE REMAINING OBVIOUSNESS REJECTION
Claim 10 depends indirectly from claim 1 and is rejected based on
Ma, Baumann ’194, and Baumann ’008. Final Act. 9-10. No separate
argument has been presented for this claim. See Br. 7—11. We are not
persuaded of error for the reasons previously discussed.
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1—3, 10, 15, and 28
under § 103.
5 If prosecution continues, the Examiner may consider whether claim 28
satisfies 35 U.S.C. § 112(b). Claim 28 recites “to switch the first codec
scheme to the G.711 Redundant or the T.38 codec scheme.” Br. 15. The
“first codec scheme” has not been previously recited in claim 28.
7
Appeal 2016-007019
Application 11/892,922
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
8