Ex Parte Eichen et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardDec 21, 201713541417 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 21, 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. 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 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation