Ex Parte Read

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Nov 6, 2012

10332785 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 6, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte STEPHEN MICHAEL READ
____________________

Appeal 2010-010086
Application 10/332,785
Technology Center 2400
____________________

Before ALLEN R. MacDONALD, ROBERT E. NAPPI and
MICHAEL J. STRAUSS, Administrative Patent Judges.

MacDONALD, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2010-010086
Application 10/332,785

2
STATEMENT OF CASE
Introduction
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a rejection of claims
1-18, 27, 28, and 30. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
Exemplary Claim
Exemplary claim 1 under appeal read as follows:
1. A communications system for making a multimedia call,
comprising:
a first multimedia terminal configured to communicate using H.323;
a second multimedia terminal configured to communicate using
H.323;
a first communication unit, associated with the first multimedia
terminal, configured to establish a multimedia call over a shared IP network
between said first multimedia terminal and the second multimedia terminal
using H.323, said communication unit including a first firewall through
which the multimedia call passes, wherein
the first firewall is configured to restrict certain types of
communication between the first terminal and the shared communications
network,
each of the first multimedia terminal and the second multimedia
terminal has a number of logical communication ports for transmitting or
receiving the multimedia call, including at least one dynamically assigned
port; and
a transmitter, associated with the first multimedia terminal is
configured to send a request to the second multimedia terminal to open up
one or more dynamic ports in the second multimedia terminal;
a proxy server disposed between the first multimedia terminal and the
second multimedia terminal that is configured to act as a proxy for the first
multimedia terminal and the second multimedia terminal during the
multimedia call, wherein
Appeal 2010-010086
Application 10/332,785

3
the proxy server has logical communication ports for communication
with the first multimedia terminal, including one or more pre-assigned ports
for communication with the first multimedia terminal;
the first firewall is configured not to restrict communication between
the first multimedia terminal and the one or more pre-assigned ports of the
proxy server for communication with the first multimedia terminal, and
the proxy server is configured to receive the request to open up said
one or more dynamic ports in the second multimedia terminal via one of the
proxy server's pre-assigned ports and to modify the request to change a
source of the request from a network address of the first multimedia terminal
and the at least one dynamically assigned port of the first multimedia
terminal to a network address of the proxy server and a pre-assigned port of
the proxy server for communication with the second multimedia terminal.

Rejections on Appeal
1. The Examiner rejected claims 1, 3, 4, 6-13, 16, 18, 27, 28, and
30 as being unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over the combination of
Barker (US 6,470,020 B1), Tighe (US 7,069,432 Bl), Awadallah (US
6,449,251 Bl), and Ress (US 6,885,658 B1). 1
2. The Examiner rejected claims 2, 5, 14, 15, and 17 as being
unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over various combinations of Barker,
Tighe, Awadallah, Ress, and other references. 2

1 Separate patentability is not argued for claims 3, 4, 6-13, 16, 18, 27, 28,
and 30. Except for our ultimate decision, the Examiner’s rejections of these
claims are not discussed further herein.
2 Separate patentability is not argued for these dependent claims. All these
remaining rejections turn on our decision as to the underlying § 103
rejection of claims 1 and 28, and are not further addressed herein. Except for
our ultimate decision, the Examiner’s rejections of these claims are not
discussed further herein.
Appeal 2010-010086
Application 10/332,785

4
Appellant’s Contentions
1. Appellant contends that the Examiner erred in rejecting
claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a), because:
When addressing the “proxy server” of Claim 1 and Barker, the
outstanding Office Action refers to col. 8, line 10 to col. 9, line
14 of Barker. The outstanding Office Action fails to clearly
identify what it considers to be the claimed “proxy server” in
Barker.
(App. Br. 9)(emphasis omitted).

Issues on Appeal
Did the Examiner err in rejecting claim 1 as being obvious because
the rejection fails identify what it considers to be the argued limitations?

ANALYSIS
We agree with the Appellant’s above contention. The Examiner’s
rejection of claim 1 consists largely of quotes of the claim language and
citation to the same section of Barker (col. 8, line 10 to col. 9, line 14)
without further explanation. Such an explanation may be sufficient when
the claim’s language and structural elements correspond identically with
those of the prior art reference and thus the examiner’s reasoning is clear;
this is not the case before us. We agree that the Examiner erred as the
analysis in the Examiner’s rejection is not sufficient to show that claim 1 is
unpatentable without further explanation.

CONCLUSIONS
(1) Appellant has established that the Examiner erred in rejecting
claims 1-18, 27, 28, and 30 as being unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
Appeal 2010-010086
Application 10/332,785

5
(2) On this record, claims 1-2, 4-18, and 20-32 have not been shown
to be unpatentable.

DECISION
The Examiner’s rejections of claims 1-18, 27, 28, and 30 are reversed.

REVERSED

ELD