Ex Parte Durecu et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardMar 27, 201712736286 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 27, 2017) Copy Citation 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. 12/736,286 09/27/2010 Olivier Durecu 29250P-000105/US/NP 6139 30594 7590 03/29/2017 HARNESS, DICKEY & PIERCE, P.L.C. P.O. BOX 8910 RESTON, VA 20195 EXAMINER CHOU, ALAN S ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2451 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 03/29/2017 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): dcmailroom@hdp.com pshaddin@hdp.com ipsnarocp @ nokia. com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte OLIVIER DURECU and BRUNO LEGAT Appeal 2016-000821 Application 12/736,2861 Technology Center 2400 Before CARL W. WHITEHEAD JR., NABEEL U. KHAN, and JOHN R. KENNY, Administrative Patent Judges. KHAN, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Final Rejection of claims 1—14. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We reverse. 1 Appellants identify Alcatel Lucent as the real party in interest. App. Br. 2. Appeal 2016-000821 Application 12/736,286 STATEMENT OF THE CASE The Invention Appellants’ invention relates to the negotiation of coding resources between two communication clients for the transmission of a multimedia session. Spec. 1:3—4. The Specification discloses that “[i]n order to transmit certain media, such as audio or video, the information must be encoded in a digital format” and that multiple such formats may exist, some of which may be better suited to certain conditions than others. Spec. 1:19—20. In order for two clients to communicate in a multimedia session, it is necessary that they share at least one common coding resource. Spec. 1:28—30. Before establishing a multimedia session, the clients negotiate the coding resources to use by exchanging signaling messages. Spec. 1:31—32. However, the clients do not have a global view of the communication network and, therefore, cannot base their selection on the network’s characteristics, such as available bandwidth. Spec. 2:14—18. Appellants’ invention addresses this concern by introducing a device that acts as an intermediary between the two clients and transmits signaling messages between the two clients containing resource information regarding the coding resources that the clients have to establish a communication session. Spec. 2:25—29. Exemplary independent claim 1 is reproduced below. 1. A device for a communication network, comprising: at least one communications interface; and a processor configured to, transmit, via the at least one communications interface, signaling messages between a calling client and a called client, which may contain resource information regarding the coding resources that an associated one of the calling client and called 2 Appeal 2016-000821 Application 12/736,286 client support, intended to establish a communication session between said clients, delete the resource information contained within an invite message before transmitting to said called client, transmit the invite message from the calling client to the called client such that the invite message from the calling client has been modified by the deleting of the resource information before the invite message is forwarded to the called client; determine, at the device, a set of useable resources supported by the calling client and the called client from resource information contained within said invite message from the calling client and an answer message from the called client, the set of usable resources being a set of different compression formats supportable by both the calling client and the called client, select a coding resource from among said set based on an amount of unused bandwidth available at the communication interface for the communication session such that the coding resource that is selected is one of the different compression formats from said set, and insert resource information regarding said resource as the only resource information within said answer message before transmission to said calling client, and within said acknowledgment message before transmission to said called client. References and Rejections 1. Claims 1—10 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Kumarasamy et al. (US 2008/0086566 Al, published Apr. 10, 2008), Capuozzo et al. (US 2008/0320148 Al, published Dec. 25, 2008), and Vega-Garcia et al. (US 2003/0016630 Al, published Jan. 23, 2003). 3 Appeal 2016-000821 Application 12/736,286 2. Claims 11—14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Kumarasamy, Capuozzo, Vega-Garcia, and Akhtar et al. (US 2009/0129388 Al, published May 21, 2009). ANALYSIS Claim 1 recites “determine, at the device, a set of useable resources supported by the calling client and the called client from resource information contained within said invite message from the calling client and an answer message from the called client.” The Examiner finds Capuozzo teaches this limitation by disclosing the selection of “a mutual codec from a list of mutually usable codecs for the media sessions between the caller and callee.” Final Act. 4 (citing Capuozzo | 58). The Examiner further finds Capuozzo teaches the disputed limitation by disclosing a repository storing information about clients from both calling SIPx server and callee SIPy server. Ans. 3 (citing Capuozzo 144). Appellants argue that while “Capuozzo discloses a scheme where a called party directly determines the codec to use from information in an invite message,” it does not disclose determining the codec to use from information contained in the callee’s answer message. App. Br. 14. We are persuaded of Examiner error. We do not discern from any of the relied upon portions of Capuozzo that the mutually useable codec is determined based on information contained within an invite message from the caller and information contained within an answer message from the callee. Instead, Capuozzo merely discloses that its repository “may store information about clients of either or both SIP servers SIPx 324 and SIPy 4 Appeal 2016-000821 Application 12/736,286 326” without explaining that this information originates from an invite and answer message. See Capuozzo 144. Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of independent claim 1 nor of independent claim 8 which includes a limitation of commensurate scope. We also do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of the pending dependent claims, for the same reasons. DECISION The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1—14 is reversed. REVERSED 5 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation