Ex Parte Dufrene et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Nov 6, 2013

11477964 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 6, 2013)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
__________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
__________

Ex parte RENE DUFRENE and ERIC BERNIER
__________

Appeal 2011-011201
Application 11/477,964
Technology Center 2600
__________

Before DONALD E. ADAMS, LORA M. GREEN, and
JEFFREY N. FREDMAN, Administrative Patent Judges.

FREDMAN, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
This is an appeal1 under 35 U.S.C. § 134 involving claims to a method
for reestablishing a disconnected call session. The Examiner rejected the
claims as obvious. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm-
in-part.

1 Appellants identify the Real Party in Interest as Nortel Networks
Limited (see App. Br. 1).
Appeal 2011-011201
Application 11/477,964

2
Statement of the Case
Background
The Specification teaches a
method for reestablishing a disconnected call session. The
method comprises establishing a call with a user via a
communication device; storing call state and bridge
information associated with the call session, determining
that the call session has been disconnected and maintaining
the call state and bridge information for redialing the user.

(Spec. 3 ¶ 0009).
The Claims
Claims 1-20 are on appeal. Claim 1 is representative and reads as
follows:
1. A method for reestablishing a disconnected call session, the method
comprising:
establishing a call session with a user via a communication device
using one of a cellular network and an Internet Protocol (IP) network;
storing call state and bridge information associated with the call
session;
determining that the call session has been disconnected;
maintaining the call state and the bridge information; and
redialing the user to reestablish the disconnected call session over the
other of the cellular network and the Internet Protocol (IP) network.

The issues

A. The Examiner rejected claims 1, 2, 7-11, 15, 16, and 20 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Berstis2 and Burritt3 (Ans. 3-6).

2 Berstis et al., US 2005/0233736 A1, published Oct. 20, 2005.
3 Burritt et al., US 2004/0235509 A1, published Nov. 25, 2004.
Appeal 2011-011201
Application 11/477,964

3
B. The Examiner rejected claims 3-6, 12-14, and 17-19 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as obvious over Berstis, Burritt, and Chakrabarti4 (Ans. 6-8).
A. 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Berstis and Burritt
The Examiner finds that “Berstis teaches establishing a call session
with a user via a communication device using cellular network (see fig. 1)
as expressed by the appellants ‘using one of a cellular network and an IP
network’” (Ans. 3). The Examiner finds that “Berstis does not however
teach once disconnected, redialing the user to reestablish the disconnected
call session over the other of the cellular network and the IP network” (id. at
3-4). The Examiner finds that Burritt teaches that “[t]he dropped phone user
initiates a reconnection attempt by calling a special number on switching
system 100 via the same wireless service, another wireless service, or a
wired phone - (and certainly including IP network for VOIP” (id. at 4). The
Examiner finds it obvious to “reconnect a dropped call session via a
different network for greater QOS” (id. at 5).
The issues with respect to this rejection are: Does the evidence of
record support the Examiner’s conclusion that Berstis and Burritt render
obvious the steps of “maintaining the call state and the bridge information”
and “redialing the user to reestablish the disconnected call session over the
other . . . network” as required by Claims 1 and 10?
Findings of Fact
1. The Specification teaches that:
One of the advantages of the automatic redialing feature of
the present invention is that the call state information (e.g., a

4 Chakrabarti et al., US 6,163,692, issued Dec. 19, 2000.
Appeal 2011-011201
Application 11/477,964

4
dial-in bridge number, a dial-in conference number, a
passcode, and the like) and the conference bridge
information (e.g., a numerical command to identify the
user’s authorization or identification and the like) are
maintained while attempts to reconnect the dropped user are
invoked.

(Spec. 9 ¶ 0028.)
2. Figure 8 of Berstis is reproduced below:

“FIG. 8 is a high level flow chart of the functional relationships” (Berstis 1
¶ 0013).
Appeal 2011-011201
Application 11/477,964

5
3. Berstis teaches establishing a call session where “a participant
in the teleconference initiates a call 801 to a cell phone company (CELLCO)
803. The CELLCO checks and records the identification (ID) and pass code
[sic] of the caller 805 and passes the call 807 to the teleconference center
(TCC) 808” (Berstis 3 ¶ 0023).
4. Berstis teaches that:
A teleconference participant is then enabled to input a
Conference Number and a Pass code [sic] for example, as
well as other identifying information that may be required in
order to connect into a teleconferencing session. In one
embodiment, after a participant enters this information, it is
stored locally in the cell phone memory 605 so that if the
participant becomes disconnected, the “log-on” information
is available at the participant’s cell phone memory and does
not have to be re-input by the participant to get reconnected
to the teleconference. This feature is useful, for example,
when a participant is driving a vehicle and gets
disconnected, the reconnection function is fully automatic
without requiring further keypad identification input by the
participant.

(Berstis 3 ¶ 0022.)
5. Berstis teaches that “[w]hen a participant becomes disconnected
815 as might happen when a cell phone participant is driving through a
tunnel, the loss of signal is detected 817 but the line to the TCC is
maintained” (Berstis 3 ¶ 0024).
6. Berstis teaches that “CELLCO will then begin to redial 823 the
dropped participant until a reconnection is established. When the dropped
participant is reconnected 825 the CELLCO notifies the TCC 827” (Berstis 3
¶ 0024).
Appeal 2011-011201
Application 11/477,964

6
7. Berstis teaches that “if the rejoining participant makes a
selection from the displayed menu to immediately rejoin the continuing
teleconference 835, then the rejoining party is immediately connected to the
ongoing teleconference 839” (Berstis 3 ¶ 0024).
8. Burritt teaches that:
Call reestablishment may be initiated either by the
dropped party or by adjunct 120. The dropped phone user
initiates a reconnection attempt by calling a special number
on switching system 100 via the same wireless service,
another wireless service, or a wired phone-that is, either
from the same phone number as in the original call
connection or from a different phone number.

(Burritt 3 ¶ 0040.)
9. Burritt teaches that “application of the invention is not limited
to conventional, circuit-switched, calls, but extends to other types of
communications as well, such packet-switched (VoIP) calls” (Burritt 6 ¶
0055).
Principles of Law
“The combination of familiar elements according to known methods
is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results.”
KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416 (2007). “If a person of
ordinary skill can implement a predictable variation, § 103 likely bars its
patentability.” Id. at 417.
Analysis
Berstis teaches reestablishing a disconnected call session (FF 6) where
“a participant in the teleconference initiates a call 801 to a cell phone
company (CELLCO) 803” (Berstis 3 ¶ 0023; FF 3). Berstis teaches storing
Appeal 2011-011201
Application 11/477,964

7
the call state and bridge information where “if the participant becomes
disconnected, the ‘log-on’ information is available at the participant’s cell
phone memory and does not have to be re-input by the participant to get
reconnected to the teleconference” (Berstis 3 ¶ 0022; FF 4). Berstis teaches
that “[w]hen a participant becomes disconnected 815 . . . the loss of signal is
detected 817 but the line to the TCC is maintained” (Berstis 3 ¶ 0024; FF 5).
Berstis teaches that the “CELLCO will then begin to redial 823 the
dropped participant until a reconnection is established. When the dropped
participant is reconnected 825 the CELLCO notifies the TCC 827” (Berstis 3
¶ 0024; FF 6).
The Examiner acknowledges that Berstis does not teach “redialing the
user to reestablish the disconnected call session over the other of the cellular
network and the IP network” (Ans. 4). The Examiner finds that Burritt
teaches that call “reestablishment may be initiated either by the dropped
party or by adjunct 120. The dropped phone user initiates a reconnection
attempt by calling a special number on switching system 100 via the same
wireless service, another wireless service, or a wired phone” (Burritt 3 ¶
0040; FF 8). Burritt teaches that “application of the invention is not limited
to conventional, circuit-switched, calls, but extends to other types of
communications as well, such packet-switched (VoIP) calls” (Burritt 6 ¶
0055; FF 9).
Applying the KSR standard of obviousness to the findings of fact, we
conclude that it would have been obvious to an ordinary artisan to modify
the call reestablishment method of Berstis (FF 2-7) with the use of different
services such as another wireless service, a wired phone, or a VoIP
Appeal 2011-011201
Application 11/477,964

8
connection as taught by Burritt since this would “provide greater
enhancement or convenience to the subscribers who wish to reconnect a
dropped call session via a different network for greater QOS [quality of
service]” (Ans. 5). Such a combination is merely a “predictable use of prior
art elements according to their established functions.” KSR, 550 U.S. at 417.
Appellants contend that “Berstis also fails to disclose ‘maintaining the
call state and bridge information’ as recited in Claim 1. Although Berstis
checks and records the identification and pass code [sic] of the caller, Berstis
does not maintain the call state or bridge information after the call has been
disconnected” (App. Br. 4).
We are not persuaded. The Specification identifies call state
information as “a dial-in conference number, a passcode” and conference
bridge information as “a numerical command to identify the user’s
authorization” (Spec. 9 ¶ 0028; FF 1). Berstis teaches the use of passcodes
and numerical commands such as a conference number, which are
reasonably interpreted as “call state information” and “conference bridge
information” in light of the Specification (FF 1). Specifically, Berstis
teaching that
A teleconference participant is then enabled to input a
Conference Number and a Pass code [sic] for example, as
well as other identifying information that may be required in
order to connect into a teleconferencing session. In one
embodiment, after a participant enters this information, it is
stored locally in the cell phone memory 605 so that if the
participant becomes disconnected, the “log-on” information
is available at the participant’s cell phone memory and does
not have to be re-input by the participant to get reconnected
to the teleconference. This feature is useful, for example,
when a participant is driving a vehicle and gets
Appeal 2011-011201
Application 11/477,964

9
disconnected, the reconnection function is fully automatic
without requiring further keypad identification input by the
participant.

(Berstis 3 ¶ 0022; FF 4.)
Appellants contend that “Burritt makes absolutely no disclosure
regarding reestablishing the call on a different network where the different
network is an IP network if the original call was over a cellular network, or,
conversely, over a cellular network if the original call was over an IP
network” (App. Br. 7).
We are not persuaded. Burritt is reasonably interpreted as teaching to
reconnect calls using different services, including different wireless or wired
services (FF 8) and Burritt is reasonably interpreted as teaching that VoIP is
equivalent to these conventional call services (FF 9). Therefore, the
ordinary artisan, taught by Berstis to reconnect conference calls (FF 2-7)
would have reasonably incorporated the teaching of Burritt that such
reconnection may be performed using alternate services including different
wireless, wired, or VoIP services, since these represent known equivalent
modes of connecting telephone calls (FF 8-9). See KSR, 550 U.S. at 416
(“[W]hen a patent 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.”)
Conclusion of Law
The evidence of record supports the Examiner’s conclusion that
Berstis and Burritt render obvious the steps of “maintaining the call state
and bridge information” and “redialing the user to reestablish the
Appeal 2011-011201
Application 11/477,964

10
disconnected call over the other . . . network” as required by Claims 1 and
10.
B. 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Berstis, Burritt, and Chakrabarti
The Examiner finds that “Berstis, in view of Burritt, teaches
reconnection/redialing of the disconnected communication, Berstis does not
explicitly discusses terminating redialing after a selected amount of time”
(Ans. 6). The Examiner finds that “Chakrabarti discusses ‘if reconnection
is not established within a preselected time period after the first
unsuccessful attempt, further attempts to reestablish the connection are
terminated’” (id.). The Examiner finds it obvious to “incorporate the
teaching of Chakrabarti into the teaching of Berstis for the purpose of
reserving the network resources by not making so many attempts to
reconnect the disconnected party without result” (id. at 6-7).
The issue with respect to this rejection is: Does the evidence of record
support the Examiner’s conclusion that Berstis, Burritt, and Chakrabarti
render obvious “notifying other call session participants of terminating the
redialing” as required by Claim 4?
Findings of Fact
10. Berstis teaches that “CELLCO then notifies TCC that a
participant has been dropped 819 and a prerecorded drop-out recording is
played 821 into the teleconference notifying the other participants that one
of the participants has become disconnected” (Berstis 3 ¶ 0024).
11. Chakrabarti teaches “regardless of the number of unsuccessful
attempts to reestablish the connection, if reconnection is not established
within a preselected time period after the first unsuccessful attempt, further
Appeal 2011-011201
Application 11/477,964

11
attempts to reestablish the connection are terminated” (Chakrabarti, col. 19,
ll. 39-42).
Principles of Law
“[O]bviousness requires a suggestion of all limitations in a claim.”
CFMT, Inc. v. Yieldup Int’l. Corp., 349 F.3d 1333, 1342 (Fed. Cir. 2003)
(citing In re Royka, 490 F.2d 981, 985 (CCPA 1974)).
Analysis
Claims 3-6, 12-14, and 17-19
Appellants do not separately argue the limitations of these claims,
noting that “dependent Claims 3-6, 12-14 and 17-19 are believed patentable
at least by virtue of their dependency on one or another of their base
independent Claims 1, 10 and 15” (App. Br. 10).
Having found claims 1, 10, and 15 obvious for the reasons given
above, we do not separately address these dependent claims which were not
separately argued. Thus, these claims fall with the corresponding
representative claims. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii) (2011).
Claims 4 and 18
Appellants contend that “[n]one of the cited references teach or
suggest notifying others that the system has stopped dialing the user (the
dropped caller)” (App. Br. 10).
The Examiner finds that “Chakrabarti teaches the claimed feature
(after a pre-selected maximum number of unsuccessful attempts at
reestablishing connection with the disconnected mobile participant no
further attempts to reestablish the connection automatically are made” (Ans.
13-14).
Appeal 2011-011201
Application 11/477,964

12
We find that Appellants have the better position. While Berstis
teaches to notify participants when someone is disconnected (FF 10) and
Chakrabarti teaches to terminate dialing if reconnection is unsuccessful (FF
11), neither Berstis, Burritt, or Chakrabarti teach or suggest “notifying other
call session participants of terminating the redialing” as required by claim 4.
The Examiner provides no teaching in the art or any other reason why the
other call participants would be notified that the conference terminated
redialing of the disconnected participant. In the absence of such a teaching,
suggestion, or reason, we are constrained to reverse this rejection.
Conclusion of Law
Claims 3-6, 12-14, and 17-19 fall with the corresponding
representative claims. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii) (2011).
The evidence of record does not support the Examiner’s conclusion
that Berstis, Burritt, and Chakrabarti render obvious “notifying other call
session participants of terminating the redialing” as required by Claim 4.
SUMMARY
In summary, we affirm the rejection of claims 1, 2, 7-11, 15, 16, and
20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Berstis and Burritt.
We affirm the rejection of claims 3, 5, 6, 12-14, 17, and 19 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Berstis, Burritt, and Chakrabarti.
We reverse the rejection of claims 4 and 18 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as obvious over Berstis, Burritt, and Chakrabarti.

Appeal 2011-011201
Application 11/477,964

13
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a).

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

cdc