Genband US LLC

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Dec 28, 2020

2019005641 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 28, 2020)

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.
14/800,453 07/15/2015 Jeffrey Singman 47856.131US01 1536
106874 7590 12/28/2020
Haynes and Boone, LLP (47856)
2323 Victory Avenue, Suite 700
Dallas, TX 75219
EXAMINER
HOUSTON, CLIFTON L
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2453
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/28/2020 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):
ipdocketing@haynesboone.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte JEFFREY SINGMAN, SCOTT KIDDER, and JOHN JOSEPH
BLOOMER
Appeal 2019-005641
Application 14/800,453
Technology Center 2400
BEFORE CATHERINE SHIANG, JAMES W. DEJMEK, and
MICHAEL T. CYGAN, Administrative Patent Judges.
CYGAN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–20. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.

1 We use the word Appellant to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.42(a) (2018). Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Ribbon
Communications Operating Company, Inc. Appeal Br. 3.
Appeal 2019-005641
Application 14/800,453

2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims are directed to systems and techniques for synchronizing
playback of streaming media across multiple user endpoints. Spec. ¶ 2.
Claim 1, reproduced below, is representative of the claimed subject matter,
with emphasis shown in italics:
1. A computing device, the computing device being associated
with a first user in a real time communication session over a
network, the computing device comprising:
a memory containing machine readable medium
comprising machine executable code having stored thereon
instructions for performing a method of providing electronic
media playback;
a processor coupled to the memory, the processor
configured to execute the machine executable code to:
send and receive voice data with a second user at
another computing device as part of the real time
communication session;
during the real time communication session, with a
media streaming application that is receiving a media
stream from a media server, send a media playback control
signal to the media server; and
in response to detecting the media playback control
signal, sending an indication of the media playback
control signal to a session management server that
established the real time communication session, the
indication informing the session management server that
the media playback control signals have been sent to the
media server, the session management server being
different than the media server.
Appeal 2019-005641
Application 14/800,453

3
REFERENCES2
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is:
Name Reference Date
Massey et al. (“Massey”) US 2009/0169171 A1 July 2, 2009
Sylvain et al. (“Sylvain”) US 7,996,566 B1 Aug. 9, 2011
Poston et al. (“Poston”) US 2014/0122601 A1 May 1, 2014

REJECTIONS
Claims 1–7, 9, 10, 16, and 18–20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as being unpatentable over the combined teachings and suggestions of
Sylvain and Massey. Final Act. 6.
Claims 8, 11–15, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over the combined teachings and suggestions of Sylvain,
Massey, and Poston. Final Act. 12.

OPINION
The issue presented by the Appellant is whether the Examiner has
shown the combination of Sylvain and Massey teaches or suggests the claim
limitation, “the session management server being different than the media
server,” in the context of the claims. Appeal Br. 9–13. We have reviewed
Appellant’s arguments in the Appeal Brief and the Reply Brief, in view of
the Examiner’s findings and reasoning presented in the Final Action and the

2 The Examiner has withdrawn rejections of claims 1–20 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 101 and of claims 1–10 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b); consequently, these
rejections are not before us, and we do not address their merits.
Appeal 2019-005641
Application 14/800,453

4
Examiner’s Answer, and are not persuaded that the Examiner has erred. We
begin with claim 1.
The Examiner finds claim 1 is taught by the combination of Sylvain
and Massey. Final Act. 6–8. The Examiner finds Sylvain describes a
computing device having a processor that sends and receives voice data by
supporting a bi-directional voice session (Sylvain 7:59–8:16), receives an
audio/video media stream from a video server (Sylvain 4:63–67, 5:56–57),
sends media playback commands to the video server via a session
management server (Sylvain 14:21–59), and in response to detecting the
media playback commands, sends an indication of the media playback
command to the session management server (Sylvain 14:21–56), wherein the
session management server MSS 22 is different from the media server 20
(Sylvain 4:20–48; 6:24–34; Fig. 1). Id. at 6–7.
The Examiner finds Sylvain teaches the claimed invention except for
providing the session management server an indication that the media
playback control signals have been sent to the media server. The Examiner
finds that limitation is taught or suggested by Massey, citing Massey’s
indicating that a pause command has been received by, and/or issued to,
media server 202e, where the indication is sent by device 202a to other
devices including media server 202e. Id. at 7. The Examiner finds Massey
teaches synchronization across devices, such that the device 202a sends a
pause command to device 202, acting as a management server to issue pause
commands to devices 202 b, c, e, in order to coordinate and synchronize
playback between devices 202 a–e. Ans. 6–7 (citing Massey ¶¶ 25–26,
Fig. 2). The Examiner further finds Massey teaches that the devices are not
limited to mobile devices, but may be additional and/or separate servers for
Appeal 2019-005641
Application 14/800,453

5
providing the media content. Ans. 8. The Examiner finds the claim is
taught by modifying the teachings of Sylvain with the teachings of Massey
to incorporate the indication informing the session management server that
the media playback control signals have been sent to the media server. Final
Act. 7.
Appellant argues that Massey sends an indication of a media control
signal not to a server, but instead, to other communication devices. Appeal
Br. 10–11. Appellant argues that the claim requires the indication to be sent
to “a session management server that established the real time
communication session.” Id. at 11. Appellant argues that although Massey
notes that devices other than mobile communication devices can be used,
Massey does not teach or suggests sending indications to a session
management server. Id.; Reply Br. 2–3. Appellant argues that the lack of
such teachings in Massey prevents the combination of Sylvain and Massey
from teaching the claimed invention. In particular, Appellant argues,
However, while the Answer refers to devices 202d or 202e
as “servers,” there is nothing within Massey that teaches or
suggests that such devices are servers, let alone “a session
management server that established the real time
communication session” as recited in claim 1. Because of this,
as argued in the Appeal Brief, there is nothing within Massey to
suggest modification of Sylvain’s system to notify a session
management server of a playback command.
Reply Br. 3.
We are not persuaded by Appellant’s argument. We agree with the
Examiner’s characterization of Massey. In particular, the Examiner’s
finding that device 202d acts as a management server is supported by
Massey’s statement, “device 202d functions in the role of server by
Appeal 2019-005641
Application 14/800,453

6
broadcasting 224 content to the other devices 202a, 202b, 202c, and 202e.”
Massey ¶ 24. Massey further describes the broadcasting as taking place in
accordance with instructions of a broadcasting module, and that a separate
server may provide the primary media content. Id. Accordingly, we agree
with the Examiner that Massey describes session management servers in the
form of device 202d or alternative broadcast servers providing media
content. Thus, we agree with the Examiner’s finding that Massey teaches
sending a playback control indication to a session management server.
The test for obviousness is “what the combined teachings of the
references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art.” In re
Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981). Although Appellant argues that
Massey does not teach an indication sent to a session management server
“that established the real time communication session,” the Examiner has
relied not solely upon Massey, but the combined teachings of Massey and
Sylvain. Final Act. 7. The Examiner finds Sylvain teaches sending an
indication of the media playback command to the session management
server that established the real time communication session. Id. Because
Appellant argues against the combination solely because of asserted defects
in the teaching of Massey, whereas the Examiner relies upon the
combination of references to teach the disputed limitation, we are not
persuaded that the combination of Massey and Sylvain fails to teach or
suggest the claimed invention, including the disputed limitation of “a session
management server that established the real time communication session.”
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1.
Appellant argues claims 2–7, 9, 10, 16, and 18–20, rejected under the same
combination, under the same arguments as applied to the rejection of claim
Appeal 2019-005641
Application 14/800,453

7
1. Appeal Br. 12. Thus, claims 2–7, 9, 10, 16, and 18–20 fall with claim 1,
and we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of those claims. 37 C.F.R.
§ 43.37(c)(1)(iv). Appellant also applies the same arguments to claims 8,
11–15, and 17, rejected as being obvious over the base combination, further
in view of Poston. For the same reasons set forth in sustaining the rejection
of claim 1, we sustain the rejections of claims 8, 11–15, and 17.
CONCLUSION
The Examiner’s obviousness rejections of claims 1–20 over the prior
art are sustained.
DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§
Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1–7, 9, 10,
16, 18–20
103 Sylvain, Massey 1–7, 9, 10,
16, 18–20

8, 11–15, 17 103 Sylvain, Massey,
Poston
8, 11–15, 17
Overall
Outcome
1–20

TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(1)(iv).
AFFIRMED