Ex Parte Even et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Feb 15, 2012

10362382 (B.P.A.I. Feb. 15, 2012)

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.
10/362,382 10/06/2003 Roni Even 199-0055US 1475
29855 7590 02/16/2012
WONG, CABELLO, LUTSCH, RUTHERFORD & BRUCCULERI,
L.L.P.
20333 SH 249 6th Floor
HOUSTON, TX 77070
EXAMINER
DAFTUAR, SAKET K
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2451
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/16/2012 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________________

Ex parte RONI EVEN and URI RABINERZON
____________________

Appeal 2009-011200
Application 10/362,382
Technology Center 2100
____________________

Before ERIC S. FRAHM, ERIC B. CHEN, and BRUCE R. WINSOR,
Administrative Patent Judges.

FRAHM, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2009-011200
Application 10/362,382

2
STATEMENT OF CASE
Introduction
1

Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of
claims 7-18. Claims 1-6 and 19-24 have been canceled. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
Exemplary Claim
Exemplary independent claim 7 under appeal reads as follows:
7. An apparatus for communicating multimedia data streams between
a first endpoint communicatively coupled to a secured network secured by a
firewall and a second endpoint external to the secured network, wherein said
multimedia data streams are formatted in accordance with a particular
communications protocol, the apparatus comprising:
a first logical port;
a second logical port; and
a common interface communicatively coupling the first logical port to
the second logical port;
the first logical port being communicatively coupled to the first
endpoint through the secured network and operative to extract multimedia
data streams from the common interface and transmit them to the first
endpoint, and to receive multimedia data streams from the first endpoint and
inject them into the common interface, the first endpoint being
communicatively coupled to the secured network secured by a firewall;

1
Throughout our decision we refer to Appellants’ Brief (“Br.”) filed March
30, 2009, and the Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.”) mailed July 24, 2008.
Appeal 2009-011200
Application 10/362,382

3
a second logical port communicatively coupled to the second endpoint
external to the secured network and operative to receive input data from the
second input port, filter the input data allowing only multimedia data
streams to be accepted and to inject the multimedia data streams into the
common interface, and, to extract multimedia data streams from the
common interface and transmit them to the second endpoint;
wherein the multimedia data streams bypass the firewall.
Examiner’s Rejections
(1) The Examiner rejected claims 7, 8, 11, 12, 15, and 16 as being
unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over the combination of Harwood
(US 5,604,867), Pallmann (US 6,094,684), and del Val (US 6,128,653).
2

Ans. 3-10.
(2) The Examiner rejected claims 9, 10, 13, 14, 17, and 18 as being
unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over the combination of Harwood,
Pallmann, and Lynch (US 6,598,088 B1). Ans. 10-12.
Appellants’ Contentions
3

(1) Appellants contend (Br. 6-16) that the Examiner erred in rejecting
claims 7, 8, 11, 12, 15, and 16 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over the

2
Separate patentability is not argued for claims 8, 12, and 16 (see Br. 16).
3
Aside from asserting claims 9, 10, 13, 14, 17, and 18 are allowable for the
same reasons argued for claims 7, 11, and 15 from which claims 9, 10, 13,
14, 17, and 18 respectively depend (which grounds are different because
different references are applied), Appellants’ Brief fails to present any
arguments with regard to the rejection of claims 9, 10, 13, 14, 17, and 18
under § 103(a) over Harwood, Pallmann, and Lynch (see Br. 16). Therefore,
because Appellants have not disputed the Examiner’s rejection set forth in
the Answer (see Ans. 10-12), Appellants have not shown that the Examiner
erred in rejecting claims 9, 10, 13, 14, 17, and 18. See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(1)(vii).

Appeal 2009-011200
Application 10/362,382

4
combination of Harwood, Pallmann, and del Val for numerous reasons
including:
(a) the combination fails to disclose an apparatus for communicating
multimedia data streams that bypass a firewall, as recited in claim 7 (Br. 6-
12);
(b) “Pullman does not teach or suggest anything about streams of
multimedia data,” and does not teach filtering, as recited in claim 7 (Br. 10-
11;
(c) del Val does not teach traversing the firewall with a multimedia
data stream using a common interface, as recited in claim 7 (Br. 11);
(d) the combination fails to teach a first and second logical port, or
that multimedia streams bypass a firewall, as recited in claim 11 (Br. 12-14);
and
(e) the combination does not teach filtering a received data stream and
allowing streams conforming to a multimedia communications protocol to
bypass a firewall, as recited in claim 15 (Br. 14-16).

Issue on Appeal
Based on Appellants’ arguments in the Brief (Br. 6-16), the following
issue is presented on appeal:
Did the Examiner err in rejecting claims 7, 8, 11, 12, 15, and 16 as
being obvious because the combination of Harwood, Pallmann, and del Val
fails to teach or suggest the limitations at issue in independent claims 7, 11,
and 15 of filtering a received multimedia data stream and allowing data
streams conforming to a multimedia communication protocol to bypass a
firewall of a secured network?
Appeal 2009-011200
Application 10/362,382

5

ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellants’
contentions in the Appeal Brief that the Examiner has erred. We disagree
with Appellants’ conclusions.
Claims 7, 8, 11, 12, 15, and 16
We adopt as our own (1) the findings and reasons set forth by the
Examiner in the action from which this appeal is taken, and (2) the reasons
set forth by the Examiner in the Examiner’s Answer in response to
Appellants’ Appeal Brief (see Ans. 3-26), with one exception. We agree
with Appellants (Br. 9) that Harwood does not teach or suggest a secured
network. However, we determine that del Val discloses a secured network
(Fig. 2; col. 11, ll. 53-58), the Examiner has relied on del Val for teaching a
secured network (Ans. 5 and 25), and Appellants have not shown otherwise.
We concur with the conclusions reached by the Examiner with regard to the
obviousness of claims 7, 11, and 15 in view of the combination of Harwood,
Pallmann, and del Val.
Appellants provide multiple repeated arguments (Br. 6-16) concerning
the individual shortcomings in the teachings of each of the applied
references to Harwood, Pallmann, and del Val. We have carefully reviewed
these arguments, however, and they are not convincing of the
nonobviousness of the claimed invention set forth in claims 7, 11, and 15.
For example, the Appellants criticize Harwood for not teaching a
firewall (Br. 9). We note that del Val, not Harwood, is relied upon for a
description of a firewall 108 as part of the combination of references.
Similarly, Appellants criticize Pallmann for not teaching a common interface
Appeal 2009-011200
Application 10/362,382

6
and logical ports (Br. 11), when the Examiner has relied upon Harwood for
these features (see Ans. 3-4).
It is for this reason one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking
references individually when the rejection is based on a combination of
references. In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981). Each reference
cited by the Examiner must be read, not in isolation, but for what it fairly
teaches in combination with the prior art as a whole. See In re Merck & Co.,
Inc., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986). In this light, we do not find
ourselves persuaded by Appellants (see Br. 8, 14, and 16) that the
combination of Harwood, Pallmann, and del Val fails to teach or suggest a
method and apparatus for communicating multimedia data streams that
bypass a firewall.
We disagree with Appellants’ argument (Br. 10) that Pallmann does
not teach filtering or extracting multimedia data streams. To the contrary,
Pallmann specifically describes that “data 108 of the data source 104 is in
some format such as text or some form of multimedia data (e.g. audio, video
or image data)” (col. 5, ll. 64-66; see also col. 29, l. 32 to col. 30, l. 7 and
col. 31, ll. 22-28 describing multimedia data streams).
We also disagree with Appellants’ argument (Br. 11) that del Val does
not teach multimedia data bypassing a firewall. To the contrary, del Val
discloses control and data connections 308 and 310 using a protocol (see
Fig. 3) for handling “multiple data streams (e.g., audio, video, annotation)
that may be needed in a particular data rendering session” (col. 8, ll. 39-41).
And, del Val teaches different embodiments (Fig. 4, 5C, and 6) using
multiple control and data connections for “advantageously bypassing the
firewall” (col. 11, ll. 57-58). See generally firewall 400 in Fig. 4 described
Appeal 2009-011200
Application 10/362,382

7
at col. 8, ll. 45-54; firewall 520 in Fig. 5C described at col. 10, ll. 18-32;
firewall 604 in Fig. 6 described at col. 11, l. 62 to col. 12, l. 8.
Claims 9, 10, 13, 14, 17, and 18
Appellants have failed to show that the Examiner erred in determining
that the combination of Harwood, Pallmann, and Lynch teaches or suggests
the method and apparatus for communicating multimedia data streams
recited in claims 9, 10, 13, 14, 17, and 18 because Appellants do not address
the merits of the inclusion of Lynch in the combination, or otherwise present
arguments on the merits with regard to these claims (see Br. 16). See 37
C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii) (requiring a statement in the briefs as to each
ground of rejection presented by Appellants for review); 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(1)(vii) (stating that arguments not presented in the briefs by
Appellants will be refused consideration). As such, Appellants have not
argued that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 9, 10, 13, 14, 17, and 18
or otherwise shown this obviousness rejection to be in error. See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(1)(vii).

CONCLUSIONS
(1) The Examiner has not erred in rejecting claims 7, 8, 11, 12, 15,
and 16 as being obvious, because the combination of Harwood, Pallmann,
and del Val teaches or suggests the limitations of claims 7, 11, and 15 at
issue.
(2) The Examiner has not erred in rejecting claims 7-18 as being
unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).

Appeal 2009-011200
Application 10/362,382

8
DECISION
The Examiner’s rejections of claims 7-18 are affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED

ELD