Ex Parte Klaghofer et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardOct 3, 201310490526 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 3, 2013) 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. 10/490,526 03/22/2004 Karl Klaghofer 2001P17583WOUS 6481 7590 10/04/2013 Siemens Corporation Intellectual Property Department 170 Wood Avenue South Iselin, NJ 08830 EXAMINER ALI, FARHAD ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2478 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 10/04/2013 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 PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte KARL KLAGHOFER, HARALD MULLER, HERIBERT MULLER, and JURGEN TOTZKE ____________ Appeal 2011-006648 Application 10/490,526 Technology Center 2400 ____________ Before ERIC B. CHEN, BRUCE R. WINSOR, and MIRIAM L. QUINN, Administrative Patent Judges. WINSOR, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellants 1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a Final Rejection of claims 15-17, 19-25, and 31-40, which constitute all the claims pending in this application. Claims 1-14, 18, and 26-30 are cancelled. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). An Oral Hearing was held September 10, 2013. 1 “The real party in interest is Siemens Enterprise Communications GmbH and its related United States company Siemens Enterprise Communications Inc.” App. Br. 1. Appeal 2011-006648 Application 10/490,526 2 We affirm. STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants’ invention relates to real time connections e.g. for voice, video, or multimedia communication routed via packet oriented communication networks such as LANs (Local Area Networks) or WANs (Wide Area Networks), and more particularly to so-called Internet telephony, which is also frequently termed VoIP (Voice/Video over Internet Protocol) telephony. See Spec. 1:6-13. Claim 31, which is illustrative of the invention, reads as follows: 31. A network gateway device comprising: a first data interface configured to communicate with a first communication network, the first communication network having a first transport protocol and a first connection control protocol; a second data interface configured to communicate with a second communication network, the second communication network having a second transport protocol and a second connection control protocol, the second connection control protocol different than the first connection control protocol; a signaling gateway connected to the first and second data interfaces, the signaling gateway comprised of a conversion device configured to convert data in the first connection control protocol into data in the second connection control protocol and also convert data in the second connection control protocol into data in the first connection control protocol; a media gateway logically separated from the signaling gateway, the media gateway comprised of a media conversion device for converting between different media encoding schemes; and Appeal 2011-006648 Application 10/490,526 3 the signaling gateway configured to communicate with the media gateway via a media gateway control protocol to control the media gateway. Claims 15-17, 21-25, 31-34, and 36-39 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Agrawal (US 7,002,989 B2; issued Feb. 21, 2006; filed Apr. 4, 2001) and Hundscheidt (US 7,203,163 B1; issued Apr. 10, 2007; filed Aug. 18, 2000). Ans. 4-13. Claims 19, 20, 35, and 40 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Agrawal, Hundscheidt, and Pulkka (US 2003/0169751 Al; publ. Sept. 11, 2003; filed May 28, 2001). Ans. 13-14. Rather than repeat the arguments here, we refer to the Briefs (“App. Br.” filed Sept. 7, 2010; “Reply Br.” filed Jan. 6, 2011) and the Record (Transcript) of Oral Hearing (“Tr.”) for the positions of Appellants and the Answer (“Ans.” mailed Nov. 19, 2010) for the positions of the Examiner. Only those arguments actually made by Appellants have been considered in this decision. References herein to the Final Rejection are to the Final Rejection from which Appeal is taken (mailed Mar. 24, 2009). References herein to the Specification are to the substitute Specification having 12 pages and 39 numbered paragraphs (“Spec.” filed Mar. 22, 2004), as twice amended (filed Aug. 17, 2007 and June 17, 2009). Arguments that Appellants did not make in the Briefs or at the Oral Hearing have not been considered and are deemed to be waived. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii) (2011). ISSUES Appellants argue the patentability of independent claim 31. See App. Br. 9-12. Appellants argue the patentability of independent claim 36 relying Appeal 2011-006648 Application 10/490,526 4 on the arguments made for claim 31. App. Br. 13. Appellants argue the separate patentability of dependent claim 33. App. Br. 12-13. Appellants argue the patentability of claim 38 relying on the arguments made for claim 33. App. Br. 13. Appellants do not separately argue the patentability of claims 15-17, 19-25, and 32, 34, 35, 37, 39 and 40. See App. Br. 9, 13-14. Therefore, we will discuss the appeal by reference to claims 31 and 33. The issues raised by Appellants’ contentions are as follows: Has the Examiner provided some articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness? Does the combination of Agrawal and Hundscheidt teach or suggest “the signaling gateway configured to communicate with the media gateway via a media gateway control protocol to control the media gateway,” as recited in claim 31? Does the combination of Agrawal and Hundscheidt teach or suggest “the network gateway device is configured to substantially avoid communication between a connection control device of the first communication network and a connection control device of the second communication network,” as recited in claim 33? ANALYSIS Articulated Reasoning Appellants contend that the Examiner has not supported the rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) with “some articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness,” KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007) (quoting In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006)). App. Br. 8; Reply Br. 1. Appeal 2011-006648 Application 10/490,526 5 The Examiner finds that it would have been obvious to combine Agrawal and Hundscheidt because “there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention. . . .” Ans. 18. In particular, the Examiner finds as follows: It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to create the invention of Agrawal to include a media gateway logically separated from the signaling gateway as taught by Hundscheidt in order that “The media gateway control protocol allows to signal the corresponding control information to the signalling gateway where the signalling conversion takes place” ([Hundscheidt] Columns 16-17, lines 65-5). Ans. 9 (second brackets in original). Furthermore, the examiner provides additional motivation and reasoning from the Hundscheidt reference in Column 5 lines 56-60 which teaches “In other words, the present invention allows for each logical or physical partition of the storage node, interworking node, and parameter support node which ever is the appropriate way to achieve the service parameter exchange and payload data forwarding between the different networks.” Ans. 18. The Examiner has articulated a reasoning with underpinnings drawn from the Hundscheidt reference (Ans. 9, 18 (citing Hundscheidt col. 5, ll. 56-60; col. 16, l. 65—col. 17, l. 5)). Appellants’ contentions address the Examiner’s findings regarding the underpinnings drawn from Hundscheidt at column 5. See Reply Br. 1. However, Appellants’ contentions do not specifically address the sufficiency of the Examiner’s findings regarding the underpinnings drawn from Hundscheidt at columns 16 and 17. See App Br. Appeal 2011-006648 Application 10/490,526 6 8; Reply Br. 1. Accordingly, Appellants have failed to persuade us that the Examiner did not provide “some articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness,” KSR, 550 U.S. at 418. Appellants’ contentions that the art of record teaches away from the claimed invention are discussed below with regard to the specific claims. Claim 31 Appellants contend that “[t]here is no signaling gateway that controls a media gateway taught by Hundscheidt et al. The media gateway and signaling gateway are responsible for different functions and controlled by a media gateway controller, as explicitly taught at Column 15, lines 60-67 and Column 16, lines 1-2).” App. Br. 10; see also Reply Br. 2-4; Hundscheidt Fig. 7. The Examiner explains as follows: Hundscheidt teaches in Columns 16-17 lines 57-3, “Here, the media gateway control protocol allows to request the allocation of corresponding media conversion devices in a media gateway. The corresponding messages of the service differentiation information is included. The media gateway may, e.g., use the priority information to allocate devices for other subscribers. Furthermore, the media gateway may contain the service differentiation mapping table. Further, the mapping table may also be stored in a signaling gateway. In that case, the signaling gateway would need a mechanism to indicate the corresponding service differentiation information to the media gateway. The media gateway control protocol allows to signal the corresponding control information to the signaling gateway where the signaling conversion takes place.” The examiner asserts that the signaling gateways mechanism to indicate the corresponding service differentiation information to the media gateway, as taught by Hundscheidt above, constitutes a communication with the media gateway via a media gateway control protocol to Appeal 2011-006648 Application 10/490,526 7 control the media gateway which is analogous to the appellant's argued limitation. [T]he examiner asserts that any communication with the media gateway via a media gateway control protocol that can control the media gateway reads upon the appellant's claim limitations regardless of whether the signaling gateway has sole control over the media gateway. Ans. 19-20. Appellants contend that “[t]he plain meaning of the term ‘control’ is ‘To exercise authoritative or dominating influence over; direct.’” Reply Br. 4 (citing THE AMERICAN HERITAGE® DICTIONARY OF THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE, (4 th ed. 2000) (updated 2009), available at http://www.thefreedictionary.com/control (January 6, 2011)). Appellants assert the following: The signaling gateway taught by Hundscheidt et al., only functions per control signaling it receives from the media gateway controller 18. The signaling gateway never exerts any dominating influence or authoritative influence over the media gateway 20 or media gateway controller 18. There is no broad interpretation of the term "control" that can ignore this fact or otherwise suggest that the signaling gateway taught by Hundscheidt et al. controls the media gateway. Reply Br. 5. However, the term “control” in claim 1 must be given its broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the Specification, see In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054 (Fed. Cir. 1997), without importing limitations from the Specification into the claims, SuperGuide Corp. v. DirecTV Enters., Inc., 358 F.3d 870, 875 (Fed. Cir. 2004). A pertinent definition is “control . . . vt . . . 2 a: to exercise restraining or directing influence over: REGULATE . . . .” MERRIAM- Appeal 2011-006648 Application 10/490,526 8 WEBSTER’S COLLEGIATE DICTIONARY 252 (10th ed. 1999); compare THE AMERICAN HERITAGE DICTIONARY OF THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE (4th ed. 2000) (“control . . . tr.v. . . . 2. To adjust to a requirement; regulate.”); available at http://www.thefreedictionary.com/control (retrieved September 5, 2013). Appellants have not pointed us to any part of the Specification that would require a narrower interpretation. We construe “control” as used in claim 31 to encompass “exercis[ing]. . . directing influence over.” We further find that this broad, but reasonable, meaning of the term “control” encompasses the function of the mapping table in Hundscheidt’s signalling gateway 20 relied on by the Examiner. Therefore, we find, as did the Examiner, that Hundscheidt teaches a signalling gateway controlling a media gateway. Appellants contend that Miller (US 7,139,263 B2; Nov. 21 2006) 2 , Pulkka, and Hundscheidt each teach away from a signalling gateway that is logically separate from a media gateway. Appellants clarified at the Oral Hearing that Appellants’ contentions regarding the logically separate media and signalling gateways were directed to the control of the media gateway by the logically separate signalling gateway. Tr. 7:1-7. We are unpersuaded that Hundscheidt teaches away from the signalling gateway controlling a logically separate media gateway because, as discussed supra, Hundscheidt teaches a signalling gateway controlling a media gateway. As to the teachings of Miller and Pulkka, even accepting Appellants’ contentions that they each teach a configuration of the signalling gateway, media gateway, and media gateway controller different from the configuration recited in the 2 Miller does not appear to have been relied on by the Examiner or otherwise to have been of record in the appeal. Appeal 2011-006648 Application 10/490,526 9 claim, we are not persuaded that either reference teaches away from the claimed invention. See In re Fulton, 391 F.3d 1195, 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (If a prior art reference discloses a different solution to a similar problem, it does not teach away from the claimed subject matter unless the prior art reference also criticizes, discredits or otherwise discourages the solution claimed). Appellants do not persuasively direct us to any passage of Hundscheidt, Miller, or Pulkka, that criticizes, discredits, or otherwise discourages a configuration in which a signalling gateway exercises control over a media gateway. Appellants have failed to persuade us of error in the rejection of claim 31. Accordingly, we sustain the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Agrawal and Hundscheidt of (1) claim 31; (2) independent claim 36, which was argued relying on the arguments made for claim 31 (App. Br. 13); (3) claims 15-17, 21-25, 32, and 34, which depend from claim 31 and were not separately argued with particularity (App. Br. 9); and (4) claims 37 and 39, which depend, directly or indirectly, from claim 36 and were not separately argued with particularity (App. Br. 13). We also sustain the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Agrawal, Hundscheidt, and Pulkka of (5) claims 19, 20, and 35, which depend from claim 1 and were not separately argued with particularity (App. Br. 13); and (6) claim 40, which depends indirectly from claim 36 and was not separately argued with particularity (App. Br. 14). Claim 33 Appellants contend that the combination of Agrawal and Hundscheidt does not teach or suggest that “the network gateway device is configured to substantially avoid communication between a connection control device of Appeal 2011-006648 Application 10/490,526 10 the first communication network and a connection control device of the second communication network.” See App. Br. 12-13; Reply Br. 7. More specifically Appellants argue as follows: Agrawal et al. expressly require network control devices to be involved in RTP data processing, such as media data or other realtime transport protocol data. (Agrawal et al., Col. 5, lines 20-34). Further, Hundscheidt et al. teach that routers R must further process any packets sent via media gateway controller 18 and the media and signaling gateways 20 and 22. (Hundscheidt et al. at Figure 7, Col. 16, lines 3-6). However, Appellants’ Specification describes the connection control devices as a gatekeeper GK. See Spec. ¶ [0028]; see also Tr. 8:22-9:11. In other words, the connection control devices are devices to establish and control connections. See id. Appellants do not explain why Agrawal’s teaching that “the IWF 100 shall not process RTP data going in and out from media switching fabric 110, but rather shall leave any RTP data processing to respective networks 160 and 170” (Agrawal, col. 8, ll. 44-49 (emphasis added)) requires substantial communication between the connection control devices of the respective networks. Appellants have failed to persuade us of error in the rejection of claim 33. Accordingly, we sustain the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Agrawal and Hundscheidt of (7) claim 33; (8) claim 38, which was argued relying on the arguments made for claim 33 (App. Br. 13). ORDER The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 15-17, 19-25, and 31-40 is affirmed. Appeal 2011-006648 Application 10/490,526 11 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). See 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv). AFFIRMED kis Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation