Ex Parte Eichen et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 21, 2017

13541417 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 21, 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.
13/541,417 07/03/2012 Elliot G. Eichen 20120080 3501
7590 12/26/201725537
VERIZON
PATENT MANAGEMENT GROUP
1320 North Court House Road
9th Floor
ARLINGTON, VA 22201-2909
EXAMINER
RUBIN, BLAKE J
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2457
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/26/2017 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):
patents @ verizon.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte ELLIOT G. EICHEN and
LEE N. GOODMAN
Appeal 2017-004702
Application 13/541,4171
Technology Center 2400
Before JOHN A. JEFFERY, JASON J. CHUNG, and
STEVEN M. AMUNDSON, Administrative Patent Judges.
CHUNG, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the Final
Rejection of claims 1-21. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm-in-part.
INVENTION
The invention is directed to “monitoring for changes to resources
within a media streaming session.” Spec. ^ 10. Claim 1 is illustrative of the
invention and is reproduced below:
1. A method comprising:
1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Verizon
Communications Inc. and its subsidiary companies. App. Br. 1.
Appeal 2017-004702
Application 13/541,417
monitoring a media streaming session for a change to one
or more resources negotiated outside of a session signaling
channel, wherein the session signaling channel is one of a
plurality of session signaling channels, and the one or more
resources relate to network resources required for establishment
of media streaming by each of the plurality of session signaling
channels; and
determining whether to accept a new media streaming
session in the session signaling channel based on the change to
the one or more resources negotiated outside of the session
signaling channel.
REJECTION AT ISSUE
Claims 1-21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over the combination of Agrawal (U.S. Pat. App. Pub. No.
2008/0137541 Al; published June 12, 2008) (hereinafter, “Agrawal”) and
SynnergrenU.S. Pat. App. Pub. No. 2009/0055473 Al; published Feb. 26,
2009) (hereinafter, “Synnergren”). Ans. 2-11.
ANALYSIS
Independent Claims 1, 8, and 15
The Examiner finds Agrawal teaches all the limitations in claims 1, 8,
and 14 except for a “plurality of session signaling channels.” Ans. 2, 5, 8.
Moreover, the Examiner finds Synnergren would render obvious the
plurality of session signaling channels. Id. at 11-12 (citing Synnergren
Fig. 3).
Appellants argue the Examiner unreasonably changes Synnergren’s
session signaling channel from a first one to another. App. Br. 9. In
addition, Appellants argue that although Synnergren teaches different
signaling channels, Synnergren teaches one session signaling channel rather
than a “plurality of session signaling channels” as recited in claim 1. Id. at
2
Appeal 2017-004702
Application 13/541,417
10; Reply Br. 1-2. Further, Appellants argue Synnergren’s “resources” are
“media types supported” rather than “network resources required for
establishment of media streaming” as recited in claim 1. App. Br. 10-11.
Appellants also argue Synnergren does not monitor for a “change to the one
or more resources” as recited in claim 1, but rather monitors for a request to
change service. Id. at 10. And, Appellants argue Synnergren relates to
resource changes within the same session rather than relating to resources
“outside of the session signaling channel” as recited in claim 1. Id.
Moreover, Appellants argue Agrawal fails to remedy Synnergren’s
deficiencies and Agrawal in view of Synnergren fails to teach all the
elements of independent claims 1, 8, and 15. Id. at 11. We disagree with
Appellants.
At the outset, Appellants’ only pertinent argument to Agrawal is that
Agrawal fails to remedy Synnergren’s deficiencies and Agrawal in view of
Synnergren fails to teach all the elements of independent claims 1, 8, and 15.
App. Br. 11. Appellants’ Agrawal argument fails because it does not point
out the particulars of why Agrawal fails to teach which particular limitation.
Put another way, we do not consider Appellants’ argument as to Agrawal to
be a sufficient argument because it is a generic argument lacking specificity.
See In reLovin, 652 F.3d 1349, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (“the Board
reasonably interpreted Rule 41.37 to require more substantive arguments in
an appeal brief than a mere recitation of the claim elements and a naked
assertion that the corresponding elements were not found in the prior art”).
Because the Examiner acknowledges that Agrawal does not teach a
“plurality of session signaling channels” (Ans. 2), we turn to the cited
portions of Synnergren relied upon by the Examiner to determine if
3
Appeal 2017-004702
Application 13/541,417
Synnergren teaches or suggests this limitation. The cited portions of
Synnergren relied upon by the Examiner teach client 310 and client 350 each
communicating with a server over their own session (Ans. 11-12 (citing
Synnergren, Fig. 3)), which teaches a “plurality of session signaling
channels” as recited in claim 1. In addition, the cited portions of Synnergren
relied upon by the Examiner teach a network with multiple nodes that
suggest the network would support more than one session (i.e., a plurality of
session signaling channels). Synnergren 33. We, therefore, agree with the
Examiner’s finding that a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time
the invention was made would render obvious the plurality of session
signaling channels from reading Synnergren’s disclosure. Ans. 11-12
(citing Synnergren, Fig. 3).
Regarding the remainder of Appellants’ arguments pertaining to
Synnergren, we find those arguments unpersuasive because the Examiner
made findings that Agrawal teaches all the limitations in claim 1 except for a
“plurality of session signaling channels” (Ans. 2), which were not rebutted
sufficiently by Appellants. Stated differently, Appellants’ arguments are not
commensurate with the entirety of the Examiner’s rejection (i.e., the
combination of Agrawal and Synnergren). The fact that we rely on fewer
than all of the references (i.e., we rely on Agrawal for all limitations except a
“plurality of session signaling channels”) the Examiner applied does not, in
itself, warrant a new ground of rejection. In re Bush, 296 F.2d 491,496
(CCPA 1961); In re Boyer, 363 F.2d 455, 458 n.2 (CCPA 1966).
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of independent
claims 1, 8, and 15 for the reasons stated supra. Because Appellants
presented similar arguments for dependent claims 2, 3, 5-7, 9-14, and 16-20
4
Appeal 2017-004702
Application 13/541,417
(App. Br. 11), we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of dependent claims 2, 3,
5-7, 9-14, and 16-20 for the reasons stated supra.
Dependent Claim 4
The Examiner finds Agrawal teaches Quality of Service in a network.
Ans. 2, 4 (citing Agrawal 26, 37). Appellants argue Agrawal does not
pertain to “network resources” because it pertains to authentication of a new
session. We disagree with Appellants.
The cited portions of Agrawal relied upon by the Examiner teach
Quality of Service in a network, which teaches “resources” relating to a
network as required by claim 4. Ans. 2, 4 (citing Agrawal 26, 37).
Agrawal’s Quality of Service is a network resource because it pertains to
providing a certain level of bandwidth to a data flow at points within the
network. Agrawal, Abstract, 20.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of dependent claim
4 for the reasons stated supra.
Dependent Claim 21
The Examiner finds Agrawal teaches changes to Quality of Service in
the form of upgrades or downgrades, which the Examiner maps to “one or
more resources include current resources and expected resources of all
media streaming sessions” as recited in claim 21. Ans. 11. Appellants argue
Agrawal fails to teach “one or more resources include current resources and
expected resources of all media streaming sessions” as recited in claim 21
because Agrawal merely teaches feedback as to current resources being
used. (Emphasis added.). We agree with Appellants.
The cited portions of Agrawal relied upon by the Examiner teach
changes to Quality of Service in the form of upgrades or downgrades, which
5
Appeal 2017-004702
Application 13/541,417
is for one session rather than “all media streaming sessions” as recited in
claim 21. Agrawal ^ 55.
Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of dependent
claim 21 for the reasons stated supra.
DECISION
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) is affirmed.
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claim 21 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
is reversed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l)(iv).
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
6