Ex Parte Reuss et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardDec 14, 201511522195 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 14, 2015) Copy Citation 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 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation