Ex Parte Rosenwald et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardFeb 25, 201411731018 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 25, 2014) Copy Citation UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________________ Ex parte JEFFREY A. ROSENWALD and JOSEPH D. KRALOWETZ ____________________ Appeal 2011-008130 Application 11/731,018 Technology Center 2400 ____________________ Before JOSEPH L. DIXON, JAMES R. HUGHES, and ERIC S. FRAHM, Administrative Patent Judges. DIXON, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2011-008130 Application 11/731,018 2 STATEMENT OF CASE Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a rejection of claims 1-23. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm-in-part. The claims are directed to method and apparatus for verifying signaling and bearer channels in a packet switched network. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 1. A method of verifying integrity of a logical channel traversing a Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP) network, the method comprising: transmitting, via a signaling channel, a signal known to cause a device to respond with bearer information via a bearer channel over the VoIP network; generating pulse code modulation (PCM) signals as a function of the bearer information; transmitting the PCM signals to a subscriber line interface circuit (SLIC) via a bus; and evaluating the bearer information based on the PCM signals to verify integrity of the bearer channel on the VoIP network. REFERENCES The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on appeal is: Goodman US 7,173,910 B2 Feb. 6, 2007. Czerwiec et al. US 7,274,669 B2 Sept. 25, 2007. Harrington et al. US 2007/0177514 A1 Aug. 2, 2007. Chung et al. US 2008/0285764 A1 Nov. 20, 2008. Appeal 2011-008130 Application 11/731,018 3 REJECTIONS Appellants seek our review of the following rejections: Claims 1-5 and 7-20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Goodman in view of Czerwiec. Claim 6 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Goodman in view of Czerwiec, as applied to the parent claim, in view of Chung. Claims 21-23 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Goodman in view of Czerwiec and in view of Harrington. OPINION ANALYSIS Claims 1-5 and 7-20 The Examiner states: • On page 6 of the Appeal Brief, the Appellant contends that Czerwiec fails to teach transmitting the PCM signals to a subscriber line interface circuit via a bus. • The Examiner notes that the Examiner has relied on Goodman to teach the PCM signals and not Czerwiec. The Examiner has relied on Czerwiec to teach transmitting signals to a subscriber line interface circuit (i.e. SLI/LPF Circuit 312) via a bus (col. 6 lines 46-53). (Ans. 14-15.) From our review of column 6 of the Czerwiec reference, we find no description of communications signals similar or related to PCM signals. The Examiner maintains the Czerwiec reference describes Appeal 2011-008130 Application 11/731,018 4 transmitting “signals” to a subscriber line interface circuit via a bus. (Ans. 5, 15.) The Examiner does not identify any specific bus in the Czerwiec reference or the PCM signals. In the rejection, the Examiner identifies columns 3, 4, and 6 regarding PCM signals. Appellants contend that PCM signals are disclosed generally, but there is no disclosure of how they are communicated or used in the Goodman reference. (App. Br. 6.) From our review of the relied upon portions of the Goodman reference, we agree with Appellants. We find the Examiner’s piecemeal reconstruction of the claimed invention to be based upon hindsight reconstruction where the Goodman reference mentions PCM signals as an option, but no communication of them and the general communication of the Czerwiec reference (via a bus) appears to have no relationship to the teachings of the Goodman reference. While we understand the Examiner’s rejection and identification of the parts of the claimed invention from each of the two prior art references, the Examiner has not set forth a convincing line of reasoning as to how the PCM signals generally disclosed in the Goodman reference would be transmitted on the bus of the Czerwiec reference. (See generally App. Br. 7- 8.) Appellants contend: [E]ven if Czerwiec were read as providing such a teaching, said teaching would not be applicable to Goodman. As described above, Goodman utilizes a test probe, which is in the form of a network node, to initiate a call and receive a voice file. Goodman’s test probe is a proprietary, stand-alone device that is “connected to a gateway,” “uses an [Internet Service Domain Name] ISDN Primary Rate Interface (PRI) service,” “store[s] a sample or reference voice file” and “a software algorithm implementing a perceptual voice call listening quality test Appeal 2011-008130 Application 11/731,018 5 model,” and sets up a call to “transmit and receive the reference voice files” (col. 3, lines 12-18, 28-34 and 52-67). This test probe does not involve a SLIC, nor a bus connected thereto. For example, Goodman’s test probe uses the received voice file to determine the “voice quality of a call” by comparing the received voice file against a reference voice file stored at the test probe (col. 3, line 62 - col. 4, line 6). Goodman would have no purpose to incorporate a SLIC in this process, because there is no benefit in testing a SLIC that would have no other function and serves no purpose in the test probe. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would not be motivated to modify Goodman’s test probe to be configured with Czerwiec to “transmit[] the PCM signals to a subscriber line interface circuit (SLIC) via a bus,” as recited in Appellants’ Claim 1. (App. Br. 6-7.) We agree with Appellants’ contentions and find the Examiner’s responsive arguments (Ans. 15) to be a generalized restatement of the position advanced in the statement of the rejection. We find the Examiner’s further commentary to be conclusory and not well supported by the express teachings identified in the statement of the rejection. Thus, we are left to speculate as to the how the combined teachings would result in the claimed invention. Therefore, we cannot sustain the rejection of independent claim 1 and its respective dependent claims. Independent claim 11 contains similar limitations as independent claim 1. Therefore, we cannot sustain the rejection of independent claim 11 and its respective dependent claims. Claim 6 Additionally, the Examiner has not identified how the teachings of the Chung reference remedy the deficiency noted above with Appeal 2011-008130 Application 11/731,018 6 respect to independent claim 1. Therefore, we cannot sustain the rejection of dependent claim 6. Claims 21-23 With respect to independent claim 21, the Examiner additionally relies upon the Harrington reference in combination with the Goodman and Czerwiec references. We note that independent claim 21 does not contain the same limitation noted above with respect to independent claims 1 and 11 regarding the PCM signals. Furthermore, Appellants’ sole argument is a general argument for patentability and does not specifically address the merits of independent claim 21. Appellants generally contend that “one of ordinary skill in the art would find no motivation in Harrington, alone or in combination with Goodman and Czerwiec, to implement an ATA to initiate a call and convert a digital representation of a test tone to verify integrity of a VoIP session as recited in Claim 21.” (App. Br. 10.) The Examiner provides responsive arguments in the Answer, and Appellants did not file a Reply Brief to respond thereto. (Ans. 17.) Therefore, Appellants do not show error in the Examiner’s conclusion of obviousness of representative independent claim 21 and dependent claims 22 and 23 grouped therewith. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW The Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1-20 based upon obviousness. The Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 21-23 based upon obviousness. DECISION For the above reasons, the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-20 is reversed, and the Examiner’s rejection of claims 21-23 is affirmed. Appeal 2011-008130 Application 11/731,018 7 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-IN-PART cdc Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation