Ex Parte Durecu et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 27, 2017

12736286 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 27, 2017)

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