Hewlett-Packard Development Company, L.P.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Apr 15, 2021

2021000085 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 15, 2021)

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.
15/277,188 09/27/2016 Stephen Hinton 84517406 3554
22879 7590 04/15/2021
HP Inc.
3390 E. Harmony Road
Mail Stop 35
Fort Collins, CO 80528-9544
EXAMINER
SADANANDA, ABHIJIT B
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3624
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
04/15/2021 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):
ipa.mail@hp.com
jessica.pazdan@hp.com
yvonne.bailey@hp.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte STEPHEN HINTON,
SARIT WILLIAMS, CYPRESS,
and RICK THAI PHAM
____________

Appeal 2021–000085
Application 15/277,188
Technology Center 3600
____________

Before ANTON W. FETTING, JOSEPH A. FISCHETTI, and
CYNTHIA L. MURPHY, Administrative Patent Judges.

FETTING, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2021-000085
Application 15/277,188

2

STATEMENT OF THE CASE1
Stephen Hinton, Sarit Williams, Cypress, and Rick Thai Pham
(Appellant2) seeks review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 of a final rejection of
claims 1–8, 10–12, 14, and 16, the only claims pending in the application on
appeal. We have jurisdiction over the appeal pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
The Appellant invented a way of allowing a user to provide a signal
via a dedicated input that causes automatic connection to an impending or
already started meeting. Specification para. 7.
An understanding of the invention can be derived from a reading of
exemplary claim 1, which is reproduced below (bracketed matter and some
paragraphing added).
1. A method, comprising:
[1] receiving, at a computing device, an unprompted signal from
a dedicated hardware input button of the computing device to
initiate a conference call;
[2] generating, in response to receiving the unprompted signal, a
known signal associated with initiating the conference call;
[3] scanning, via a processor of the computing device in response
to receiving the known signal, a calendar for a temporally
relevant appointment,
wherein the calendar scanned is based on a conference
room reservation;

1 Our decision will make reference to the Appellant’s Appeal Brief (“Appeal
Br.,” filed June 10, 2020) and Reply Brief (“Reply Br.,” filed October 1,
2020), and the Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.,” mailed August 3, 2020), and
Final Action (“Final Act.,” mailed February 5, 2020).
2 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in
37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Hewlett-
Packard Development Company, L.P. (Appeal Br. 3).

Appeal 2021-000085
Application 15/277,188

3

[4] scanning, via the processor, the temporally relevant
appointment for connection information regarding the
appointment;
[5] determining, by the processor, a compatible communication
application from a plurality of communication applications based
on the connection information,
wherein:
[6] the communication application is one of a voice over
internet protocol (VoIP) application, a chat application, a
teleconferencing application, a video conferencing
application, and a telephone application;
and
[7] the connection information corresponds to the
compatible communication application to be utilized
during the appointment;
[8] selecting and connecting, by the processor, to the conference
call automatically through the compatible communication
application;
and
[9] establishing a connection associated with the temporally
relevant appointment using the connection information through
the compatible communication application.
The Examiner relies upon the following prior art:
Name Reference Date
Adamson US 5,717,863 Feb. 10, 1998
Hawkins US 2007 /0188448 A1 Aug. 16, 2007
Ohmura US 2010/0324946 A1 Dec. 23, 2010
Red US 2016/0021254 A1 Jan. 21, 2016
Appeal 2021-000085
Application 15/277,188

4

Claims 1–8, 10–12, 14, and 16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Red, Ohmura, Hawkins, and Adamson.3
ISSUES
The issues of obviousness turn primarily on whether Adamson shows
it was at least predictable to one of ordinary skill to determine and select a
compatible communication application from a plurality of communication
applications based on the connection information.
FACTS PERTINENT TO THE ISSUES
The following enumerated Findings of Fact (FF) are believed to be
supported by a preponderance of the evidence.
Facts Related to the Prior Art
Red
01. Red is directed to conducting a conference call. Red para. 2.
02. Red describes a card reader to access a scheduled conference call
and/or initiate an unscheduled conference call. For example, an
employee badge is swiped in the card reader to read employee
information and identify and/or authenticate the user. The user's
identity is used to access a calendar of the user and to locate a
scheduled conference call in the user's calendar. Red para. 18.
03. Red describes a multipoint control unit (MCU) server used to
bridge videoconferencing connections and provide for the
exchange of content between the user devices and/or user
telecommunications devices participating in each conference call.

3 A written description rejection (Final Action 5) was withdrawn. Advisory
Action mailed March 25, 2020.
Appeal 2021-000085
Application 15/277,188

5

The MCU server has multiple blades that provide communications
between the participating user devices and/or the participating
user telecommunications devices. Each blade of the MCU server
may serve as a server with a dedicated task, such as streaming
audio, streaming video, and the like, and may comprise a port for
each connection of the bridge. Red para. 26.
04. Red describes the conference processor sending the information
used to initiate the conference meeting to the conferencing device
in response to the user selecting a conference session. The
conferencing device may forward instructions for the conference
session to a media application executing on the virtual meeting
room (VMR) management server. The VMR management server
assumes management of the conference call and establishes the
conference call on the MCU server. The media application
receives the conference code from the conferencing device and
cross references the conference code to a user name in a local
database. The media application assigns a VMR to an MCU blade
on the MCU server and configures the MCU blade accordingly.
In response to receiving the assignment from the media
application, the MCU server establishes conference
communications for a specified conference session and sends
conference communications set-up information back to the media
application. Red para. 36.
05. Red describes different user interfaces being selected based on
the type of conference call session. For example, a video
conference tab may be selected to access the user interface, and an
Appeal 2021-000085
Application 15/277,188

6

audio conference tab may be selected to access a user interface
directed to audio only conference call sessions. Red para. 48.
Ohmura
06. Ohmura is directed to a teleconference support system for
teleconferencing among a plurality of conference rooms. Ohmura
para. 3.
07. Ohmura describes determining whether there is a conference
room reserved for a given teleconference but not satisfying
conditions for participation when the given teleconference is to
start; searching for other conference rooms satisfying the
conditions for participation when it is determined that the reserved
conference room does not satisfy the conditions for participation;
detecting another conference room that satisfies the conditions for
participation; and changing the teleconference venue from the
conference room that does not satisfy conditions for participation
to the conference room detected at the detecting step that does
satisfy the conditions for participation. Ohmura para. 11.
08. Ohmura describes a teleconference apparatus connection unit
connecting teleconference apparatuses when it is determined that
conference start conditions are satisfied. Ohmura para. 61.
09. Ohmura describes a teleconference apparatus connection unit
connecting teleconference apparatuses when it is determined that
conference start conditions are satisfied. Ohmura para. 61.
Hawkins
10. Hawkins is directed to launching applications on a mobile
communication device. Hawkins para. 3.
Appeal 2021-000085
Application 15/277,188

7

11. Hawkins describes a hand–held computing device that uses an
application button to launch a plurality of applications. This
simplifies launching applications on a hand–held computing
device by allowing multiple applications to be launched using an
application button. Hawkins para. 9.
12. Hawkins describes the hand–held computing device initially
associating a primary application with an application button.
Hawkins para. 10.
Adamson
13. Adamson is directed to personal computer (PC) conferencing.
Adamson 1:7–8.
14. Adamson describes an address record with identification
information of addressee, e.g. the addressee's last name and first
name, and connection addresses for the various transports
supported by PC. For examples, the connection address for ISDN,
the connection address for LAN, and the connection address for
POTS. Each connection address has the connection type and the
number for the particular connection type. Adamson 5:41–48.
15. Adamson describes a connect command button used to actually
initiate connection using the connection type with the connection
address formulated. Adamson 8:18–21.
ANALYSIS
As to the Appeal Brief arguments, we adopt the Examiner’s
determinations and analysis from Final Action 8–12 and Answer 4–8 and
reach similar legal conclusions. We now take up the Reply Brief arguments.
We are not persuaded by Appellant's argument that
Appeal 2021-000085
Application 15/277,188

8

Red does not describe determining (or selecting, as stated on
Page 5 of the Examiner's Answer) a communication application
from a plurality of communication applications, at least because
Red does not describe selecting a communication application.
Rather, Red describes a preselected media application (e.g., a
videoconferencing application) that communicates with a server
to configure different blades in the server for exchanging audio
content or video content for the videoconferencing application.
That is not analogous to determining a communication
application from a plurality of communication applications, at
least because Red describes only a single media application (e.g.,
a videoconferencing application). In other words, Red does not
describe determining a communication application from a
plurality of communication applications to establish a call with
an MCU server to configure the MCU server for a conferencing
session.
Reply Br. 3. The Examiner applies Adamson to describe the recited
selection. The Examiner is citing Red only to show it was known to use
prospective conference information to select and set up some form of
applications. The Examiner determines that a dedicated task of a server such
as Red’s is within the scope of “application” and that audio and visual
streaming services are within the scope of “communication application.”
Ans. 5. Thus, Red at least describes selecting some dedicated task on a
selected server blade based on a particular conference.
We are not persuaded by Appellant’s argument that
Adamson teaches determination of whether a transport type is
supported and whether a connection type is supported. Appellant
respectfully submits that a transport type and connection type are
not terms that are used interchangeably to represent the same
element, at least because Adamson describes these method steps
(e.g., step 234 and step 238) to determine whether a transport
type is supported and whether a connection type is supported are
distinct method steps (e.g., and therefore not interchangeable
terms) and not a single step.
Appeal 2021-000085
Application 15/277,188

9

Reply Br. 4. Appellant argues that the particular selection object in
Adamson is not that recited in the claims.
Although transport type and connection type may not be terms that are
used interchangeably to represent the same element, they are both attributes
of the particular type of selected mode of communication. Another such
attribute is the software application that executes such communication. One
of ordinary skill knew that all three are such attributes. Thus, Adamson
shows it was known to automatically select particular instances of such
attributes. The claims merely substitute one such attribute for those in
Adamson. Where, as here “‘[an application] claims a structure already
known in the prior art that is altered by the mere substitution of one element
for another known in the field, the combination must do more than yield a
predictable result,’” KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398,
416 (citing United States v. Adams, 383 U.S. 50-51 (1966)). “When a work
is available in one field of endeavor, design incentives and other market
forces can prompt variations of it, either in the same field or a different one.
If a person of ordinary skill can implement a predictable variation, § 103
likely bars its patentability.” Id. 550 U.S. at 417. “A person of ordinary
skill is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton.” Id. 550 U.S.
at 421.
We are not persuaded by Appellant's argument that
Adamson . . . teaches selection of a connection type to make a
connection between callers for a data, telephone, or video
conference, where the connection type includes POTS, ISDN,
LAN, MCU, and/or PTSN connection types and the transport
type includes IPX transport types. However, . . . a transport
type and a connection type are different elements. Accordingly,
determining whether a transport type (e.g., IPX) is supported to
make a connection between two callers, as recited by Adamson,
Appeal 2021-000085
Application 15/277,188

10

is not analogous to determining a compatible communication
application from a plurality of compatible communication
applications based on connection information at least because
transport type and connection type are not analogous elements.
Second, even if a connection type and a transport type are
analogous elements (which Appellant disputes), Adamson
describes different PCs and servers coupled to each other and
engaged in various types of conferencing applications. . . .
Therefore, . . . the type of application (e.g., data, telephone, or
video conference) described in Adamson does not correspond to
the connection type (e.g., POTS, ISDN, LAN, MCU, and/or
PTSN) or a transport type (e.g., IPX) . . . . In other words, while
Adamson does recite data, telephone, or video conferencing,
Adamson does not describe determining a compatible
communication application (e.g., determining compatibility of a
data, telephone, or video conference) based on connection
information, wherein the connection information corresponds to
the compatible communication application to be utilized.
Reply Br. 5–6. Appellant again argues that the particular selection object in
Adamson is not that recited in the claims. And again, the recited application
selection is simply another predictable attribute selection for a scheduled
conference. Having shown that one of ordinary skill knew to automatically
associate and automatically select accordingly the various technology
attributes necessary to a conference with a scheduled conference, as both
Red and Adamson describe, it was predictable to extend such selection to all
necessary attributes for setting up the conference technologically. As all
such technology was by definition known and practiced for such
conferences, reasonable expectation of success could not be an issue.
Appeal 2021-000085
Application 15/277,188

11

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
The rejection of claims 1–8, 10–12, 14, and 16 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Red, Ohmura, Hawkins, and Adamson is
proper.
CONCLUSION
The rejection of claims 1–8, 10–12, 14, and 16 is affirmed.
In summary:
Claim(s)
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§
Basis Affirmed Reversed
1–8, 10–12,
14, 16
103 Red, Ohmura,
Hawkins,
Adamson
1–8, 10–12,
14, 16

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) (2011).

AFFIRMED