Ex Parte BalasuriyaDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardDec 18, 201310034794 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 18, 2013) Copy Citation UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________________ Ex parte SENAKA BALASURIYA ____________________ Appeal 2011-005443 Application 10/034,794 Technology Center 2400 ____________________ Before: JOSEPH L. DIXON, JAMES R. HUGHES, and ERIC S. FRAHM, Administrative Patent Judges. DIXON, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2011-005443 Application 10/034,794 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of claims 1-3, 6, 19-21, 26 and 28-30. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We reverse. INVENTION Appellant’s claimed invention is related to communication devices and methods that employ proxy servers. (Spec., 1.) Independent claim 1, reproduced below, is representative of the subject matter on appeal. 1. An apparatus for multi-modal communication comprising: a controller operative to select one or more of a plurality of multi-modal session proxy servers; and the plurality of multi-modal session proxy servers each having a proxy address, wherein the controller determines, on a per session basis, which of a plurality of multi-modal proxy identifiers represents the proxy address of a selected multi- modal session proxy server of the plurality of proxy servers. REFERENCE Boloker US Pat. App. Pub. No.: 2002/0194388 A1 Dec. 19, 2002 REJECTION Claims 1-3, 6, 19-21, 26 and 28-30 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being anticipated by Boloker. Appeal 2011-005443 Application 10/034,794 3 ANALYSIS Appellant contends that the Examiner has not identified proxy servers in the Boloker reference and the reliance on the a multi-modal shell is in error. Appellant contends "the cited paragraphs do not describe that the browser or controller of FIG. 1 does any of the operations set forth in the paragraph." (App. Br. 18-19). Appellant further contends that: Not only are multiple multi-modal session proxy servers required - each having their own proxy address - but the controller determines, for each session, which of the plurality of multi-modal proxy servers are to be selected from the group of session proxy servers and determines the identifier for the selected multi-modal proxy from the group. This dynamic multi-modal session proxy determination is not taught or suggested by the cited portions of Boloker. (App. Br. 19, emphasis omitted). The Examiner maintains that the client 160 and server 170 comprise: a client 160 and a server 170, each comprising an RTCCP/RTCCtP communication stack 11, 171 for implementing RTCCP for conversational transport and control of encoded speech data. The client 160 comprises an engine proxy 162 and an application 163 such as a speech browser. The server 170 comprises an application proxy 172 and conversational engines 173 (see fig. 21; paragraphs [0142] and [0259][)]. (Ans. 8-9). Appellant contends that: The Examiner's Answer states that the server 170 comprises an application proxy 172 and conversational engines 173. However, the claim does not claim an "application proxy" but instead describes "a plurality of multi-modal session proxy servers[.]"[] As claimed, the controller determines (see claim Appeal 2011-005443 Application 10/034,794 4 1), on a per session basis, which of the plurality of multi-modal proxy identifiers represents a proxy address of a selected multi- modal session proxy server. FIG. 21 of Boloker actually uses different types of proxies (e.g., application and engine) for different purposes. (Reply Br. 2, emphasis omitted). Appellant further contends that: As such, application proxy 172 is actually a "browser proxy" - not a multi-modal session proxy server - simply acts as a proxy for the server in the other client device, for example. This is different from what Appellant shows, for example, in their FIG. 1, where multiple multi-modal session proxy servers 110 may be utilized by a single browser in either a terminal or a network element. Accordingly, among other errors, the rejection appears to confuse the term "application proxy" with the claimed term "multimodal session proxy servers[.]"[] Moreover, the claimed multi-modal proxy servers employ "multi-modal proxy identifiers" that represent both the proxy address of a selected multi-modal session proxy server[.]"[] Again, the Examiner's Answer does not indicate where the reference teaches that the application proxy 172 employs such multi-modal proxy identifiers and proxy addresses. Appellant respectfully submits that they are not disclosed since a different type of proxy is used and since a single application proxy is used in the description of FIG. 21, for example. Accordingly, there is no need for any plurality of multi-modal session proxy servers. (Reply Br. 3). We agree with Appellant that the Examiner has not shown that the Boloker reference describes the combination recited in claim 1, namely: a controller operative to select one or more of a plurality of multi-modal session proxy servers; and the plurality of multi-modal session proxy servers each having a proxy address, wherein the controller determines, on a per session basis, which of a plurality of multi-modal proxy Appeal 2011-005443 Application 10/034,794 5 identifiers represents the proxy address of a selected multi- modal session proxy server of the plurality of proxy servers. While the Examiner has shown that the Boloker reference contains different proxies in Figures 1 and 21, the Examiner has not shown that the Boloker reference describes the invention as claimed. Therefore, we cannot sustain the rejection of independent claim 1 and its respective dependent claims 2, 3, and 6 which contain the same limitations. Additionally, we note that Appellant has argued the limitations of dependent claim 2 to further emphasize that the Examiner's interpretation of the controller in the Boloker reference as a browser is inconsistent with the language of dependent claim 2 which states "wherein the browser is operably coupled to the controller." (App. Br. 17-18). Appellant further contends with respect to dependent claim 2 that "a dynamic per session multi-modal session proxy server selection operation can be done by a browser as opposed to a static network proxy operation." (App. Br. 20). We agree with Appellant that the Examiner has not shown how the controller/browser of the Boloker reference describes a dynamic per session multi-modal session proxy server selection as recited in independent claim 1 (and further detailed and distinguished by dependent claim 2). With respect to independent claims 19 and 26, the Examiner relies upon the rejection of independent claim 1 and does not set forth separate arguments for unpatentability. (Ans. 6). Therefore, the Examiner has not set forth a sufficient grounds of unpatentability, as discussed above, and we cannot sustain the rejection of these claims and their respective dependent claims. Appeal 2011-005443 Application 10/034,794 6 CONCLUSION The Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1-3, 6, 19-21, 26 and 28-30 under 35 U.S.C. § 102. DECISION The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-3, 6, 19-21, 26, and 28-30 is reversed. REVERSED tj Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation