Ex Parte Reuss et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 14, 2015

11522195 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 14, 2015)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
111522, 195 09/15/2006
32681 7590 12/16/2015
PLANTRONICS, INC
IP Department/Legal
345 ENCINAL STREET
P.O. BOX635
SANTA CRUZ, CA 95060-0635
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Edward L. Reuss
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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
01-7321/US 2627
EXAMINER
PHUNG,LUAT
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2468
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/16/2015 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@plantronics.com
francois .devilliers@plantronics.com
neely.frazier@plantronics.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte EDWARD L. REUSS, WILLIAM 0. BROWN,
CRISTIAN C. FILIMON, ALAN ALTMANN, and RICK GILES
Appeal2013-008264
Application 11/522, 195 1
Technology Center 2400
Before JOHN A. EV ANS, HUNG H. BUI, and
KEVIN C. TROCK, Administrative Patent Judges.
TROCK, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Introduction
Appellants seek review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
final rejection of claims 9, 10, 12-22, and 24--26. We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). Claims 1-8, 11, and 23 are cancelled. 2
We AFFIRM.
1 Appellants indicate the real party in interest is Plantronics, Inc. App. Br. 1.
2 App. Br. 17; Final Act. 2.
Appeal2013-008264
Application 11/522, 195
Invention
The claimed invention relates to a wireless VOIP headset with call
origination capability. Spec. Title.
Exemplary Claim
Exemplary claim 9 is reproduced below with disputed limitations
emphasized:
9. A wireless VoIP headset comprising:
a speaker;
a microphone for receiving speech energy from a near
end user to generate an analog audio signal;
a codec for converting the analog audio signal to a digital
audio signal and encoding the digital audio signal, wherein the
codec also decodes a receive digital audio signal for output to
the speaker;
a controller for processing the digital audio signal to
generate IP packets and implementing a VoIP call control
protocol;
a wireless transceiver;
a computer readable memory storing an application
configured to receive a user directory selection from a
computing device and generate a VoIP call origination request
message responsive to the user directory selection.
Applied Prior Art
The Examiner relies on the following prior art in rejecting the claims:
Averkamp
Rezvani
US 6,865,403 B 1
US 2007/0165875 Al
2
Mar. 8, 2005
July 19, 2007
Appeal2013-008264
Application 11/522, 195
Rejections
Claims 9, 10, 12-22, and 24--26 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Rezvani and Averkamp.
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner's rejections and the evidence of
record in light of Appellants' arguments that the Examiner has erred. We
disagree with Appellants' arguments and conclusions. 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 findings and reasons set forth in
the Examiner's Answer. We concur with the conclusions reached by the
Examiner and further highlight specific findings and argument for emphasis
as follows.
Appellants contend the Examiner erred in rejecting independent claims
9, 16, and 22 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) because neither Rezvani nor
A verkamp, alone or in combination, teaches or suggests a VoIP (Voice-over
Internet Protocol) headset "storing an application configured to receive a
user directory selection from a computing device and generate a VoIP call
origination request message responsive to the user directory selection," as
recited in claim 9, and similarly recited in claims 16 and 22. App. Br. 5-14.
Appellants argue Averkamp teaches that it is the VAD (voice-activated
dialing) server (124) which originates a specified call, not a wireless hands-
free unit as required by claim 9. App. Br. 6. Appellants also argue that
A verkamp does not teach that the user selects the authorization code for
transmission to the VAD server (124), nor does it teach that the user enters
the authorization code. App. Br. 7. Thus, Appellants argue Averkamp's
3
Appeal2013-008264
Application 11/522, 195
"authorization code" is not the claimed "user directory selection." Id.; see
also Reply Br. 16.
Appellants further argue that even assuming A verkamp 's
"authorization code" is the claimed "user directory selection", A verkamp
teaches that it is the VAD server (124) which receives the "directory
selection", not a wireless headset as required by claim 9. App. Br. 7; see
also Reply Br. 17. Moreover, Appellants argue Averkamp's VAD server
(124) does not initiate a call responsive to receiving the "authorization
code". App. Br. 8. Appellents argue the Averkamp "authorization code"
received by the V AD server (124) merely authorizes further communication
between the VAD server and the wireless subscriber terminal (106), such
that when the user speaks dialing commands into the microphone, the user's
voice commands cause the V AD server to initiate a specified call. App. Br.
8 (citing A verkamp, col. 3, 11. 1-5); see also Reply Br. 1 7, 18.
The Examiner states, however, that "there are numerous selection
means in the art that would read on the claimed "directory selection". Ans.
3. The Examiner explains, "[I]n the broadest sense, any data entry is a
selection of that data." Id. The Examiner, therefore, interprets the claimed,
"VoIP call origination request message" as "any signal that indicates the
desire for a call to be placed in a VoIP network." Id.
The Examiner finds Rezvani discloses a wireless VoIP headset
comprising an application configured to generate a VoIP call origination
request message. Final Act. 3 (citing Rezvani Fig. 2; i-f 19). The Examiner
also finds Averkamp discloses a voice-activated-dialing (VAD) platform,
including a directory, which a headset connects to when a user engages an
actuator. Final Act. 4 (citing Averkamp, Abstract; Table 1; col. 2, 11. 61---63;
4
Appeal2013-008264
Application 11/522, 195
col. 3, 11. 1-5; col. 7, 11. 43--47). The Examiner finds the combination of the
VoIP headset of Rezvani, with the networked directory of A verkamp,
discloses the limitations of the claims, including receiving a directory
selection from the headset and generating a VoIP call origination request
message. Ans. 4.
Specifically, the Examiner finds Averkamp discloses the directory
server requests the user for an authorization code after receiving a selection.
Ans. 4 (citing Averkamp, Table 1 (first entry in Results column)). The
Examiner reads the reception of the directory entry request from the server
as the claimed received directory selection, as it is the selected directory
profile. Id. In response, the Examiner finds, the user enters the
authorization code to place the call. Id. (citing Averkamp, Table 1 (the
authorization code is required to proceed)). The Examiner explains that in
entering the code, the user is requesting that the call be placed. Id.
Therefore, the Examiner finds the message transmitted from the headset with
the authorization code as a VoIP call origination request message as
claimed. Id.
In reply, Appellants argue the sending of the authorization code to the
server only authorizes the user access to use the server. Reply Br. 16.
Appellants argue no call is originated by the server in response to receiving
the authorization code. Id. Appellants argue it is only after the user speaks
dialing commands into the terminal microphone that the server initiates a
specified call. Reply Br. 16-18.
We agree with the Examiner. Claim 1 reads in pertinent part, "A
wireless VoIP headset comprising: ... an application configured to receive a
... selection from a ... device and generate a ... message responsive to ...
5
Appeal2013-008264
Application 11/522, 195
the selection." The claim recites that 1t 1s an "application" which is "to
receive a user directory selection" and that the application will also
"generate a ... VoIP call origination request message" in response to the
selection. The Examiner finds, and we agree, the claim requires that the
application, "generate a VoIP call origination request message," which is not
the actual act of originating the call. Ans. 5. Moreover, no particular form
or means for making the "user directory selection" or the "VoIP call
origination request message" is specified by the claim. Appellants
acknowledge Averkamp teaches that the user enters commands ("speaks
dialing commands") through a hands-free device ("into the terminal
microphone") to request the "server (124) to initiate a specified call." App.
Br. 8 (citing Averkamp, col. 3, 11. 1-5).
Accordingly, we are not persuaded by Appellants' arguments the
Examiner erred in finding the combination of Rezvani and A verkamp
teaches or suggests, "[a] wireless VoIP headset comprising: ... an
application configured to receive a user directory selection from a
computing device and generate a VoIP call origination message responsive
to the user directory selection," within the meaning of independent claims 9
and 16.
Appellants provide similar arguments with respect to independent
claim 22 as were made with respect to independent claim 1. For the reasons
articulated above with respect to independent claim 1, we find the Examiner
did not err in rejecting independent claim 22.
Appellants have not presented additional substantive, persuasive
arguments with respect to dependent claims 10, 13-15, 17-21, and 24--26.
See App. Br. 10, 11, and 15. As such, we are not persuaded the Examiner
6
Appeal2013-008264
Application 11/522, 195
erred in rejecting these claims. See In re Lovin, 652 F.3d 1349, 1356 (Fed.
Cir. 2011) ("We conclude that the Board has reasonably interpreted Rule
41.3 7 to require applicants to articulate more substantive arguments if they
wish for individual claims to be treated separately.").
CONCLUSION
We conclude the Examiner did not err in finding the combination of
Rezvani and A verkamp teaches or suggests the claim limitations discussed
above. We, therefore, sustain the rejection of claims 9, 10, 12-22, and 24--
26.
DECISION
We AFFIRM the Examiner's rejections of claims 9, 10, 12-22, and
24--26.
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
JRG
7