Ex Parte Waters

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 19, 2018

12847824 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 19, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
12/847,824 07/30/2010 Christopher Michael Waters
21186 7590 09/21/2018
SCHWEGMAN LUNDBERG & WOESSNER, P.A.
P.O. BOX 2938
MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55402
UNITED ST A TES OF AMERICA
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.
2490.006US 1 4683
EXAMINER
BIAGINI, CHRISTOPHER D
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2445
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/21/2018 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):
uspto@slwip.com
SLW@blackhillsip.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte CHRISTOPHER MICHAEL WATERS
Appeal2017-007872
Application 12/847,824
Technology Center 2400
Before MICHAEL J. STRAUSS, JEREMY J. CURCURI, and
AMBER L. HAGY, Administrative Patent Judges.
HAGY, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
Final Rejection of claims 1, 6-8, 12-14, 18, and 19, which are all of the
pending claims. 2 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We affirm.
1 Appellant identifies BT Americas Inc. as the real party in interest. (App.
Br. 2.)
2 Claims 2, 9, and 15 were canceled in an Amendment dated June 19, 2012.
Claims 3-5, 10, 11, 16, and 17 were canceled in an Amendment dated
November 26, 2014.
Appeal2017-007872
Application 12/847,824
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
According to Appellant, "[ t ]he present application relates generally to
the field of telephony and, in a specific exemplary embodiment, to a system
and method of automating intelligent real-time switching between a plurality
of telephonic devices each operating on dissimilar communications
protocols." (Spec. ,r 2.)
Exemplary Claim
Claims 1, 8, and 14 are independent. Claim 1, reproduced below with
the disputed limitations italicized, is exemplary of the claimed subject
matter:
1. A translation environment for a network architecture, the
network architecture including a first and second networked
environment (110, 130), each having a first and second
network respectively, the first and second networked
environments (110, 13 0) and translation environment being
coupled to one another by the Internet, the translation
environment to select automatically a compatible
communication protocol between end-points of the first and
second networked environments, the translation
environment comprising:
an application engine, having one or more hardware processors
and a memory, the application engine configured to receive,
via the Internet, an attempted communication from a first
end-point of the first networked environment to a second
end-point of the second networked environment, the
application engine including:
a decoder engine configured to sample the received
attempted communication and a protocol conversion
engine configured to:
2
Appeal2017-007872
Application 12/847,824
determine an underlying transport protocol of the
received attempted communication;
make a determination of a second protocol allowed by
the second network of the second networked
environment; and
to convert the underlying transport layer of the received
attempted communication to be compatible with the
second network of the second networked
environment;
the application engine being further configured to establish a
connection with the second end-point via the Internet.
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Sylvain
Parry
Chu et al. ("Chu")
Raffel et al. ("Raffel")
Patel
US 2002/0080791 Al
US 2003/0172300 Al
US 2007 /0274300 Al
US 2008/0139228 Al
US 9,021,134 Bl
REJECTIONS 3
June 27, 2002
Sept. 11, 2003
Nov. 29, 2007
June 12, 2008
Apr. 28, 2015
Claims 1, 8, and 14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as being
unpatentable over Patel and Raffel. (Final Act. 3---6.)
Claims 6, 13, and 19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as being
unpatentable over Patel, Raffel, and Parry. (Final Act. 6-7.)
Claim 7 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as being
unpatentable over Patel, Raffel, and Chu. (Final Act. 7.)
3 All rejections are under the provisions of Title 35 of the United States
Code in effect prior to the effective date of the Leahy-Smith America
Invents Act of 2011.
3
Appeal2017-007872
Application 12/847,824
Claims 12 and 18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Patel, Raffel, and Sylvain. (Final Act. 8.)
ISSUE4
Whether the Examiner erred in finding the combination of Patel and
Raffel teaches or suggests "first and second networked environments ... and
translation environment being coupled to one another by the Internet," as
recited in independent claim 1.
ANALYSIS
Appellant's contentions are unpersuasive of reversible Examiner
error. 5 We adopt as our own (1) the findings and reasons set forth by the
Examiner in the action from which this appeal is taken (Final Act. 3-8) and
(2) the reasons set forth by the Examiner in the Examiner's Answer in
response to Appellant's Appeal Brief (Ans. 2---6) and concur with the
conclusions reached by the Examiner. We highlight the following for
emphasis.
The Examiner relies on Patel as teaching or suggesting the limitations
of claim 1 (Final Act. 3-5), except the Examiner finds "Patel does not
explicitly show" that "the first and second networked environments and
4 Appellant collectively argues the rejection of all claims with regard to the
Examiner's obviousness rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
Appellant does not separately argue with particularity the Examiner's
rejections of independent claims 8 and 14 (see App. Br. 10) or the dependent
claims (see id. at 15). Therefore, based on Appellant's arguments, we
decide the appeal of claims 1, 6-8, 12-14, 18, and 19 based on claim 1
alone. See 37 C.F.R. § 4I.37(c)(l)(iv).
5 Only those arguments made by Appellant have been considered in this
decision. Arguments Appellant did not make are deemed to be waived. See
37 C.F.R. § 4I.37(c)(l)(iv).
4
Appeal2017-007872
Application 12/847,824
translation environment [are] coupled to one another by the Internet" or "that
the received attempted communication is via the Internet" (id. at 5.) For
those limitations, the Examiner relies on Raffel in combination with Patel.
(Id.)
Appellant argues the Examiner's findings are in error because Patel
discloses "a network architecture comprising two networks only, each
comprising an end-point of a connection, with the IM device residing within
one of these networks." (App. Br. 12.) We disagree. As the Examiner
finds, and we agree, "Patel clearly shows performing conversions at a device
located outside of a local network firewall." (Ans. 3 (citing Patel Fig. 3).)
In particular, Patel discloses a system in which an intermediate (IM) device
intercepts and dynamically modifies signaling messages exchanged between
a client and a server when negotiating setup and delivery of a multimedia
stream from a streaming server. (Patel, Abst.) Patel further discloses:
For example, the client and the streaming server may use
Real-Time Streaming Protocol (RTSP) messages to negotiate
the transport parameters to be used for transporting streaming
multimedia. An IM device is configured to transparently
intercept and dynamically modify the R TSP messages to
change the transport parameters. For example, an IM device
may change a transport layer protocol indicated by the RTSP
messages, such as from a first transport layer protocol that uses
a fixed port assignment to a second transport layer protocol that
uses an arbitrary port assignment, and the reverse. The IM
device also converts the real-time multimedia stream from the
first transport layer protocol to the second transport layer
protocol, and the reverse. For example, the first transport layer
may be the Transmission Control Protocol (TCP) and the
second transport layer may be the User Datagram Protocol
(UDP).
(Id. at 2:11-27.) As the Examiner finds, and we agree, Patel discloses a
5
Appeal2017-007872
Application 12/847,824
"first network" as the network of the client device, which Patel discloses
may be a desktop computer or other wireless device operating on a local area
network (LAN). (Final Act. 3; Patel 4:9-14.) As the Examiner further
finds, and we agree, Patel also discloses a "second network" as the network
of the streaming server (SP network 42 shown in Figure 3). (Final Act. 3
(citing Patel Fig. 3 and 4:9-22, 6:47-54).) The Examiner further finds, and
we agree, Patel also discloses an "application engine" in the form of the IM
device, which includes a protocol conversion engine to determine an
underlying transport protocol of a received attempted communication from
the client to the server, and determines a second protocol allowed by the
network of the server, and converts the first underlying transport layer to be
compatible with the second network (such as converting from UDP to TCP).
(Final Act. 4--5 (citing Patel 4:54--5:15, 6:47-7:10, 5:42-52, 7:11-8:8).)
Appellant argues that Patel's teachings must be "modifie[d]" to be in
accordance with claim I-specifically, to "remove the IM device 44 from
the second networked environment." (Reply Br. 3.) We disagree. As the
Examiner finds, and we agree, Patel discloses that the IM device is "outside
of a local network firewall" for the second network ("SP network 42").
(Ans. 3 (emphasis omitted).) The Examiner further finds, and we agree:
(Id.)
[I]t is difficult to draw precise delineations between computer
networks, since at some level all interconnected systems are
themselves part of an overarching network, but it is reasonable
to consider the firewall itself to be the network boundary, since
the firewall represents a point at which at least some traffic is
blocked. This is consistent with Appellant's own Fig. IA,
where the firewalls are at the border of what are considered
"network environments," as represented by dashed lines 110
and 130.
6
Appeal2017-007872
Application 12/847,824
Appellant also argues the Examiner's findings are in error because
"the skilled artisan would see no motivation to combine" the teachings of
Patel and Raffel. (App. Br. 14.) In particular, Appellant argues the
translation environment of Patel "is not connected to the first and second
networked environment by the Internet," because "the IM device is either
behind the firewall or at most on the edge of the network of one of the
networked environments (i.e., it is in front of the firewall, but it is not
outside the network)." (Id. at 12-13.)
We are not persuaded by this argument, which is premised on the
same incorrect view of Patel, as noted above. In addition, Appellant's
arguments that the ordinarily skilled artisan would not be motivated to
incorporate communications over the Internet with Patel's disclosure are
inconsistent with disclosures within Patel itself. As the Examiner correctly
notes, "Patel explains that 'the invention relates to techniques for providing
improved transmission of data streams ... over a network, such as the
Internet or a service provider network."' (Ans. 3--4 ( emphasis added).)
Thus, the context of Patel's disclosure is streaming of multimedia content
delivered over the Internet by a server to a client device. Although Patel
does not explicitly describe the specific network communications between
the IM device and the client and also between the IM device and the server
occur over the Internet, we are not persuaded of error in the Examiner's
finding that the ordinarily skilled artisan would be motivated to combine
with Patel's teachings with the disclosures of Raffel regarding Internet
connections for such devices. (See Final Act. 5; Ans. 3---6.)
For the foregoing reasons, we are not persuaded of error in the
Examiner's 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of independent claim 1, or of
7
Appeal2017-007872
Application 12/847,824
claims 6-8, 12-14, 18, and 19 argued collectively therewith. We, therefore,
sustain the Examiner's rejections of claims 1, 6-8, 12-14, 18, and 19.
DECISION
The Examiner's rejections of claims 1, 6-8, 12-14, 18, and 19 are
affirmed.
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
8