RingCentral, Inc.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Apr 1, 2022

2021001714 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 1, 2022)

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. 16/589,009 09/30/2019 Christopher van Rensburg 103-00009-000-US 5664 136879 7590 04/01/2022 Rimon Law - GENERAL SILICON VALLEY 2479 E. Bayshore Road Suite 210 Palo Alto, CA 94303 EXAMINER TIEU, BINH KIEN ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2653 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 04/01/2022 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.Rimonlaw@Clarivate.com SVDocketing@Rimonlaw.com eofficeaction@appcoll.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte CHRISTOPHER VAN RENSBURG and TETSUMASA YOSHIKAWA ____________ Appeal 2021-001714 Application 16/589,009 Technology Center 2600 ____________ Before KARL D. EASTHOM, NORMAN H. BEAMER, and SCOTT B. HOWARD, Administrative Patent Judges. BEAMER, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s final rejection of claims 1-23. We have jurisdiction over the pending rejected claims 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 (2020). Appellant identifies RingCentral, Inc., as the real party in interest. (Appeal Br. 3.) Appeal 2021-001714 Application 16/589,009 2 THE INVENTION Appellant’s disclosed and claimed invention “relates generally to the field of caller verification,” and more particularly, “to systems and methods for verifying caller identification.” (Spec. ¶ 1.) The claimed invention is directed to “confirming caller identities by verifying specific registered communication session between callers and callees.” (Id. ¶ 15.) Independent claims 1 and 9, reproduced below, are illustrative of the subject matter on appeal: 1. A computer-implemented method for improving caller verification, the method comprising: prior to initiating an intended communication session, registering the intended communication session by generating a key using, at least, a first call time window identifier, and storing the key in a database; in response to registering the intended communication session, receiving a request for caller verification, wherein the request comprises data representing a second call time window identifier; in response to receiving the request for caller verification, generating a comparison key based on the request; comparing the comparison key with the key stored in the database; and verifying the intended communication session in response to comparing the comparison key with the key. (Appeal Br. 16 (Claims App.).) 9. A non-transitory, computer-readable medium storing a set of instructions that, when executed by a processor, cause: registering an intended communication session by generating a key using, at least, a first call time window identifier, and storing the key in a database; Appeal 2021-001714 Application 16/589,009 3 in response to registering the intended communication session, receiving a request from a callee's device for caller verification, wherein the request comprises data representing a second call time window identifier; in response to receiving the request for caller verification, generating a comparison key based on the request; comparing the comparison key with the key stored in the database; and verifying the intended communication session in response to comparing the comparison key with the key. (Appeal Br. 17 (Claims App.).) REJECTIONS The Examiner rejected claims 1-23 under 35 U.S.C. § 102 as anticipated by Battistello, et al. (US 8,406,223 B2, issued Mar. 26, 2013). (Final Act. 2-8.) The Examiner rejected claims 1-8 and 17-23 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Elad, et al. (US 2017/0196031 A1, pub. July 6, 2017) and Stephens (US 10,462,292 B1, issued Oct. 29, 2019). (Final Act. 8-13).) The Examiner rejected claims 9, 10, and 12-16 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Stephens and Farris (US 9,979,818 B2, issued May 22, 2018). (Final Act. 13-16.) The Examiner rejected claim 11 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Stephens, Farris, and Tredoux, et al. (US 2014/0298035 A1, pub. Oct. 2, 2014). (Final Act. 16-17.) Appeal 2021-001714 Application 16/589,009 4 ISSUES ON APPEAL Appellant’s arguments present the following dispositive issue:2 Issue One: Whether the Examiner erred in finding Battistello disclosed the independent claim 1 requirements: prior to initiating an intended communication session, registering the intended communication session by generating a key using, at least, a first call time window identifier, and storing the key in a database; in response to registering the intended communication session, receiving a request for caller verification . . . in response to receiving the request for caller verification, generating a comparison key based on the request . . . comparing the comparison key with the key stored in the database; and verifying the intended communication session in response to comparing the comparison key with the key and the commensurate requirements of claims 9 (“in response to…” limitations) and 17 (“registering” limitation and “in response to…” limitations). (Appeal Br. 16, 17, 19.) Issue Two: Whether the Examiner erred in finding the combination of Elad and Stephens would have taught or suggested the “registering” limitation of claim 1 (“prior to initiating an intended communication session, registering the intended communication session by generating a key using, at least, a first call time window identifier, and storing the key in a database”) and the commensurate requirements of independent claim 17. (Appeal Br. 16, 19.) 2 Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellant and the positions of the Examiner, we refer to the Appeal Brief (filed Aug. 24, 2020) (Appeal Br.); the Reply Brief (filed Jan. 8, 2021) (Reply Br.); the Final Office Action (mailed Mar. 25, 2020) (Final Act.); and the Examiner’s Answer (mailed Nov. 20, 2020) (Ans.) for the respective details. Appeal 2021-001714 Application 16/589,009 5 Issue Three: Whether the Examiner erred in finding the combination of Stephens and Farris taught or suggested the “registering” limitation of claim 9 (“registering an intended communication session by generating a key using, at least, a first call time window identifier, and storing the key in a database”). (Appeal Br. 17.) ANALYSIS Issue One For the claim limitation at issue, the Examiner relies on the disclosure in Battistello of an admission request message to teach registering equipment prior to setting up a call and requesting caller verification. (Final Act. 2-3; Battistello, col. 4, ll. 48-50, col. 5, ll. 26-34, 43-51, col. 5, l. 59- col. 6, l. 3, col. 6, ll. 26-34, col. 9, ll. 35-49.) The Examiner relies on the admission request message containing the source information, destination information, and first token value, and calculating a second token value, to teach registering the intended communications session by generating a key, and receiving a request for caller verification in response to registering the intended communication session, and generating aa comparison key based on the request in response to receiving the request for caller verification. (Final Act. 2-3; Battistello, col. 5, l. 52-col. 6, l. 3, col. 6, ll. 35-42.) Appellant argues that Battistello teaches “the setup message . . . to make a call,” which does not teach the claimed “prior to initiating an intended communication session, registering the intended communication session.” (Appeal Br. 11-12.) Specifically, Appellant argues that Battistello teaches “that the steps taken is for the setup message and hence to make a call.” (Id. at 11.) Appeal 2021-001714 Application 16/589,009 6 In response, the Examiner repeats the reliance on the portions of Battistello referred to above, and specifically cites the disclosure in Battistello that the ARQ message from EP1 to GK1 is sent prior to making an intended call. (Ans. 19-20.) The Examiner also finds Battistello’s “second token value at the time the intended call was registered” that corresponds to the first token value and is registered “to protect the parameters of the dialogue prior to call set-up against fraudulent modification.” (Id. at 20.) We understand that, by this reference, the Examiner would equate Battistello’s admission request message to the claimed registering the intended communication session, Battistello’s first token value to the claimed key generated to register the intended communication session, and Battistello’s second token value to the claimed comparison key generated based on and in response to receiving the request for caller verification. In reply, Appellant points out that Battistello’s relied upon steps are “taken to call rather than to register the endpoint,” and that “Battistello presumes that the registration has already occurred.” (Reply Br. 2.) We agree with Appellant that there is no disclosure in Battistello of flow of events required by the claims. The cited sections of Battistello relied upon by the Examiner disclose: protecting the parameters of the dialogue prior to call set-up against fraudulent modifications and monitoring a high state of correlation between the messages sent in the context of call set- up… securing a network in which, to set-up a call to a called endpoint, a calling endpoint sends a call set-up message… the network sets up said call on condition that said signaling values correspond to admission values previously made known to the network… said admission values previously made known to the network are contained in a token and the network verifies that a Appeal 2021-001714 Application 16/589,009 7 first token value sent in the call set-up message corresponds to a second token value given by an equation that includes said source information element and destination information element signaling values and a random information element generated by the network to be associated secretly in the network with the first token value. (Battistello, col. 5, ll. 14-43 (emphases added).) In particular, the token in Battistello contains values previously known in the network, with the first token value sent in the call set-up message and the second token value given by an equation. However, the second token value, that was a previously known value, given by an equation does not disclose generating a token based on and in response to receiving a request for caller verification that is in response to registering a session. Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of independent claims 1, 9, and 17 as anticipated by Battistello. We also do not sustain the rejections of claims 2-8, 10-16, and 18-23 as anticipated by Battistello, which claims depend from claims 1, 9, and 17, respectively. (Appeal Br. 12.) Issue Two For the claim limitation at issue, the Examiner relies on Elad’s clicking a URI that then triggers generating a token including a timestamp, and then sending the token to the client to initiate a call, and receiving a token from the client as a request for caller verification that comprises the current time, which is then compared to the threshold, to teach the disputed limitation. (Final Act. 9; Elad ¶¶ 30, 33, 34, 36.) Appeal 2021-001714 Application 16/589,009 8 Appellant argues that Elad teaches that “a customer clicks on a URI that links to merchant web server and is intended to initiate a call to the callee,” which “is directed to when a call or communication is being initiated as opposed to any registration prior to initiating an intended communication session in the claimed fashion.” (Appeal Br. 12-13.) Specifically, Appellant argues that Elad’s messages “include the token but the token is generated when a request to establish a communication session between web client and the called device is received.” (Reply Br. 5.) According to Appellant, Elad’s “timestamp included in the generated token . . . differs from the call time window identifier” claimed. (Id. at 6.) We are not persuaded that the Examiner’s findings are incorrect. The Examiner cites, for example, Elad’s disclosure for “receiving a request from a first network entity to set up a communication session between a first user at a first device and a second user at a second device,” and “in response to the request, generating a token, wherein the token is configured to grant access to the communication session.” (Elad ¶ 10.) The token in Elad “may include a timestamp from the communication server… the token may be used to establish a requested communication session between web client 102 and callee device 108.” (Id. ¶ 33.) Then, the “Communication server 106 receives message 121 from web client 102, including the token,” and “decrypts the token” to “compare[] the decrypted timestamp to a current time and a threshold.” (Id. ¶ 36.) As supported by the cited sections of Elad, we agree with the Examiner’s finding that Elad teaches that “the web client 102 has to register with the communication server 106 in order to get the token prior to setup the communication session.” (Ans. 21.) Appellant does not explain how Appeal 2021-001714 Application 16/589,009 9 Elad’s generating a token to set up a communication session does not generate a key to set up a communication session. Accordingly, Appellant does not explain why the claimed registering the intended communication session by generating a key prior to initiating the intended call session is not taught or otherwise suggested by Elad’s generating a token in order to set up a communication session between two entities. Therefore, we sustain the obviousness rejections of independent claims 1 and 17 over Elad and Stephens. We also sustain the obviousness rejections of claims 2-8 and 18-23 over Elad and Stephens, which rejections are not argued separately with particularity. (Appeal Br. 13.) Issue Three For the claim limitation at issue, the Examiner relies on Stephens’s in- use message for an outbound call that comprises a timestamp and that is stored in a database to teach the claimed registering an intended communications session. (Final Act. 14; Stephens, col. 3, ll. 51-57; see Ans. 24.) The Examiner relies on Stephens’s query for the caller ID telephone number to teach the claimed caller verification. (Id.; Stephens, col. 3, l. 61-col. 4, l. 3.) Appellant argues that Stephens teaches “that the verification process begins when an outbound call request from a calling point is sent to the outbound carrier servicing that calling endpoint,” which “is directed to when a call is being initiated as opposed to any registration prior to initiating an intended communication session in the claimed fashion.” (Appeal Br. 13- 14; see Reply Br. 7.) We are not persuaded that the Examiner’s findings are incorrect. The Examiner cites, for example, Stephens’s disclosure that, “[j]ust prior to Appeal 2021-001714 Application 16/589,009 10 normal call processing, the termination service provider 110 creates an ‘in use’ message that includes the telephone number of the calling endpoint 105 and a timestamp,” and that the “‘in use’ message is then sent to the active call database 120.” (Stephens, col. 2, ll. 48-55.) In Stephens, the “in use” message is created “[p]rior to routing the call request to the appropriate inbound carrier 130” and it comprises “the telephone number from the caller ID field and a timestamp” and is sent “to the active call database 120… where it is stored.” (Stephens, col. 3, ll. 58-67.) “The termination service provider 110 then routes the original call request to the appropriate inbound carrier 130.” (Id.) As supported by the cited sections of Stephens, we agree with the Examiner’s finding that Stephens’s creating a message including the telephone number and timestamp that is stored in the database in order to properly route the call request teaches generating a key using a call time identifier and storing it in a database for an intended communication session. Appellant does not address this finding, and instead only argues that Stephens does not teach the creation of the message for a call request (i.e., registering an intended call session by generating a key) prior to initiating the intended communication session. However, as the Examiner responds, “Appellant argued on feature[s] which [were] NOT clearly stated in the claim 9.” (Ans. 23.) Unlike claim 1, which recites “prior to initiating an intended communication session, registering the intended communication session by generating a key,” claim 9 instead recites “registering an intended communication session by generating a key” without any further limitation to do so prior to initiating the intended communication session. Appeal 2021-001714 Application 16/589,009 11 Furthermore, Appellant does not explain how Stephens’s creating the message with calling telephone number and timestamp (i.e., generating a key using time identifier) “just prior to normal call processing” and “prior to routing the call request” does not create the message (i.e., generate the key) prior to initiation a call. Therefore, we sustain the obviousness rejections of independent claim 9 over Stephens and Farris. We also sustain the obviousness rejections of claims 10 and 12-16 over Stephens and Farris, and claim 11 over Stephens, Farris, and Tredoux, which rejections are not argued separately with particularity. (Appeal Br. 14.) DECISION SUMMARY In summary: Claim(s) Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 1-23 102 Battistello 1-23 1-8, 17-23 103 Elad, Stephens 1-8, 17-23 9, 10, 12-16 103 Stephens, Farris 9, 10, 12-16 11 103 Stephens, Farris, Tredoux 11 Overall Outcome 1-23 Appeal 2021-001714 Application 16/589,009 12 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)(1)(iv). AFFIRMED