Vonage Business Solutions, Inc.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jan 31, 2022

2020005512 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 31, 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. 14/827,548 08/17/2015 Jonathan Alexander V236P1C1 5584 121412 7590 01/31/2022 Alexander Legal LLC 138 Bulloch Ave Roswell, GA 30075 EXAMINER HARLEY, JASON A ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2468 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 01/31/2022 PAPER 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. PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte JONATHAN ALEXANDER and RYAN SWEET Appeal 2020-005512 Application 14/827,548 Technology Center 2400 BEFORE MARC S. HOFF, JENNIFER L. MCKEOWN, and MICHAEL T. CYGAN, Administrative Patent Judges. MCKEOWN, 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 1-18. 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). Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Vonage Business Inc. Appeal Br. 2. Appeal 2020-005512 Application 14/827,548 2 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER The claims are directed to software systems and software applications running on computing devices and, more particularly, to systems and methods for enhancing a telephonic communication or call managed, at least on one end of the connection, by a Voice Over Internet Protocol (VoIP) Private Branch Exchange (PBX) telephone system having a client-side integration proxy that enables a highly-scalable number of client-side software applications accessible to an end user on the VoIP PBX side of the telephonic communication to perform activities based on events, information, and data shared dynamically with each other and with the end user. Spec. 2. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 1. A system for capturing data related to a communication processed through a Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP) system for integration into a plurality of previously non-integrated software applications, the system comprising: a hosted VoIP private branch exchange (PBX) incorporating a client integration proxy to capture, store, and share data related to the communications of at least one client device managed by the hosted VoIP PBX, and wherein the client integration proxy comprises an Application Programming Interface (API) to communicate and exchange data with the plurality of previously non-integrated software applications, wherein the client integration proxy performs the operations of: (a) retrieving a prior communication data of the at least one client device based upon a request, (b) sharing the prior communication data of the at least one client device with the plurality of previously non-integrated software applications, (c) receiving from at least one of the plurality of previously non-integrated software applications, modified data related to the prior communication data of the at least one Appeal 2020-005512 Application 14/827,548 3 client device, (d) sharing the modified data within a data store, and (e) presenting the modified data related to the prior communication data of the at least one client device to a user. REFERENCES The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is: Name Reference Date Beck et al. US 2006/0067323 A1 Mar. 30, 2006 Hoover US 2006/0140173 A1 June 29, 2006 Weiser et al. US 2001/0271289 A1 Nov. 3, 2011 REJECTION The Examiner rejected claims 1-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Beck, Weiser, and Hoover. Final Act. 4-21. OPINION As an initial matter, we note that whether the Examiner improperly introduced a new ground of rejection in the Answer (as asserted in the Reply Brief), is a petitionable matter that is not properly before us. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.40(a); see also MPEP § 1207.03(b). Where, as here, Appellant did not file such a petition, Appellant's contentions regarding any alleged new ground of rejection in the Answer are waived. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.40(a). Appellant argues that Beck, Weiser, and Hoover fail to teach or suggest the claimed “sharing the prior communication data of the at least one client device with the plurality of previously non-integrated software applications.” Appeal Br. 14. In particular, Appellant asserts that Hoover “says nothing about a client integration proxy comprising an API to Appeal 2020-005512 Application 14/827,548 4 communicate and exchange data with a plurality of previously non- integrated software applications” and “Hoover does not even mention non- integrated software applications.” Appeal Br. 16. Appellant also argues that the Examiner improperly relies on inherency. According to Appellant, while an API may communicate and exchange data with a plurality of end user software applications, it is not necessary as alternative interfaces or protocols may also be used. Reply Br. 3. We find Appellant’s arguments unpersuasive. There is no ipsissimis verbis test for determining whether a reference discloses a claim element, i.e., identity of terminology is not required. In re Bond, 910 F.2d 831, 832 (Fed. Cir. 1990). As such, Appellant’s general assertion that Hoover “says nothing” about a client integration proxy or does not “mention” non- integrated software applications is unavailing. As the Examiner points out, Hoover describes the Aggregation Proxy communicating with a plurality of end user software applications. Final Act. 7; Ans. 5. The Examiner further explains the Aggregation Proxy 34 which then authenticates the XDMC 32, communicating and exchanging data with a client UE containing a non-integrated software XDM, the examiner interprets this as non-integrated software because XDM shown in paragraph 0032 of Hoover to be XDM Client application on the UE and not integrated in the client proxy. The exchange of data happens when the client 32 sends another HTTP GET message with authentication information in the header and the Aggregation Proxy 34 establishes that the user requesting the call log is the valid and appropriate user to receive the information (step 304). Ans. 6. Appellant fails to persuasively identify error in the Examiner’s determination. Appeal 2020-005512 Application 14/827,548 5 Appellant’s argument regarding the lack of inherency of Hoover’s Aggregation Proxy containing an API for communication is also unconvincing. Namely, Appellant fails to address the combination of Weiser and Hoover as teaching the claimed API. See, e.g., Final Act. 5 (noting that Weiser teaches an API for communicating).2 One cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 426 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., Inc., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Together, Weiser’s teaching of an API for communicating together with Hoover’s teaching of communicating and exchanging data with the plurality of previously non-integrated software applications at least suggests the claimed limitation. Accordingly, based on the record before us, we are not persuaded that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1-18 as unpatentable over Beck, Weiser, and Hoover. CONCLUSION The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-18 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is affirmed. 2 We note that the Background of the Specification also supports using an API to communicate is well known in the art by skilled artisans. See, e.g., Spec. 5. (discussing historically using API for communicating and exchanging data with software applications). Appeal 2020-005512 Application 14/827,548 6 DECISION SUMMARY In summary: Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 1-18 103 Beck, Weiser, Hoover 1-18 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