Arjun Cholkar et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jan 2, 2020

14486485 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Jan. 2, 2020)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
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
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
14/486,485 09/15/2014 Arjun Cholkar 47856.122 2177
106874 7590 01/02/2020
Haynes and Boone, LLP (47856)
2323 Victory Avenue, Suite 700
Dallas, TX 75219
EXAMINER
NABI, REZA U
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2175
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
01/02/2020 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):
ipdocketing@haynesboone.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte ARJUN CHOLKAR, ANTHONY JONES,
IBRAHIM DOGRU, and DON GILCHRIST
____________

Appeal 2019-000689
Application 14/486,485
Technology Center 2100
____________

Before ELENI MANTIS MERCADER, NORMAN H. BEAMER,
and GARTH D. BAER, Administrative Patent Judges.

BEAMER, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
final rejection of claims 1–3, 5–13, 15–19, 21, 24, and 25. We have
jurisdiction over the pending rejected claims under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.

1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37
C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as GENBAND
US LLC. (Appeal Br. 3.)
Appeal 2019-000689
Application 14/486,485

2
THE INVENTION
Appellant’s disclosed and claimed invention is directed to a
conversation manager used to manage multimedia conversations between
different devices associated with different users. (Spec. ¶ 26.)
Independent claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the subject
matter on appeal:
1. A method performed by a client computing system in a
communications network, the method comprising:
within a Graphical User Interface (GUI), displaying a
contact list and a conversation container to a user, the contact
list including a plurality of contact objects, the conversation
container being an active object used to represent an ongoing
conversation;
receiving input from a user through the GUI, the input
instructing the client computing system to move a first contact
object from the plurality of contact objects over the
conversation container and drop the first contact object into the
conversation container;
in response to dropping the first contact object into the
conversation container, instructing a server to open a first
communication session between the client system and a first
device associated with the one of the contact objects, the first
communication session being of a voice-only media type;
engaging in communication through the first
communication session with the first device; and
receiving input from a user indicating a request to add a
second communication session of a video media type, the video
media type using a different communication protocol than the
voice-only media type.

Appeal 2019-000689
Application 14/486,485

3
REJECTIONS
The Examiner rejected claims 1–3, 5, 7, 8, 12, 13, 17–19, 21, 24, and
25 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Yoakum et al. (US
2013/0066974 A1, pub. Mar. 14, 2013) (hereinafter “Yoakum”) and Yin et
al. (US 8,681,203 B1, iss. Mar. 25, 2014) (hereinafter “Yin”). (Final Act.
4.2)
The Examiner rejected claim 6 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Yoakum, Yin, and Sue Waters, The Complete Educator’s
Guide to Using Skype effectively in the classroom, Edublogs, 2–10 (April
2011) (hereinafter ‘Waters’). (Final Act. 8.)
The Examiner rejected claims 9–11, 15, and 16 under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as being unpatentable over Yoakum, Yin, and Apple, iPhone User Guide
For iOS 4.2 and 4.3 Software, 2–273 (March 2011) (hereinafter “Apple”).
(Final Act. 9.)

ISSUE ON APPEAL
Appellant’s arguments in the Appeal Brief present the following
issue:3

2 The heading of the rejection incorrectly lists claims 4, 14, 20, 22, and 23 as
rejected, whereas these claims were canceled in Amendments filed on Feb.
2, 2017 and June 30, 2017. See Final Act. 4.
3 Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellant and the positions of the
Examiner, we refer to the Appeal Brief (filed June, 1, 2018, hereinafter
“Appeal Br.”); the Reply Brief (filed Nov. 5, 2018, hereinafter “Reply Br.”);
the Final Office Action (mailed Dec. 1, 2017, hereinafter “Final Act.”); and
the Examiner’s Answer (mailed Sept. 5, 2018, hereinafter “Ans.”) for the
respective details.
Appeal 2019-000689
Application 14/486,485

4
Whether the Examiner erred in finding the combination of Yoakum
and Yin teaches or suggests
receiving input from a user indicating a request to add a
second communication session of a video media type, the video
media type using a different communication protocol than the
voice-only media type,

as recited in independent claim 1, and the commensurate limitations recited
in independent claims 12 and 18. (Appeal Br. 8–13; see also Reply Br. 2–
7.)
ANALYSIS
In finding that the combination of Yoakum and Yin teaches or
suggests the independent claim 1 limitation at issue, the Examiner relies on
Yoakum’s disclosure of user interface allowing a first participant to select a
second participant identifier from a contact list to initiate a conference with
the second participant. Yoakum illustrates the disclosure in the context of a
telephone conference using audio media streams, and additionally discloses
the media streams may include any combination of audio, video, text chat, or
other media. (Final Act. 4–5; Yoakum Fig. 2A, ¶¶ 67, 44.)
The Examiner further relies on Yin’s disclosure of (1) a video
conference user interface that controls audio and video streams and includes
a video control button 126 that enables a user to manually block the video
input from the user’s computing device, and (2) a web application that may
be configured for the H.264 video standard and the G.711 audio standard.
(Final Act. 5; Ans. 3–8; Yin Fig. 4, 24:23–24, 26:34–52.)
Appellant first argues that the “Examiner’s claim interpretation is
inconsistent with the specification.” (Reply Br. 3.) Appellant contends that
Appeal 2019-000689
Application 14/486,485

5
Appellant’s specification gives some examples of
communication protocols. “Specifically, the conversation
manager may use VoIP, Real-time Transfer Protocol (RTP),
Session Initiation Protocol (SIP), Short Message Service
(SMS), Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP), and other
communication protocols.”
(Reply Br. 3, quoting Spec. para 25.) Appellant additionally contends that
the disclosure also describes communication protocols as “transmission
protocols such RTP, SIP, and HTTP.” (Reply Br. 4, quoting para 31.)
According to Appellant,
construing “communication protocols” to mean codecs, which
are used to encode data rather than transmit data, is inconsistent
with the term “communication protocol” as used in the
specification.
(Reply Br. 4.)
We agree with Appellant. The Examiner finds that
[a] computer network consists of seven layers and different
protocols are used in different layers. For example, protocol
RTP runs at transport layer, protocol G.711 or H.264 runs at
presentation layer to compress the data
(Ans. 5–6, emphasis in original), and that
one of the core function[s] of [the] “presentation layer” is to do
the data compression and protocol[s] G.711 and H.264 [are
protocols] that compress the data and run[] at [the] presentation
layer.
(Ans. 6, emphasis in original.)
We do not agree with the Examiner that the G.711 (audio) and H.264
(video) are encompassed by the claimed “communication protocols.” Both
the G.711 and H.264 standards (or protocols) are used to compress and
encode data. While data compression protocols may be included in the
Appeal 2019-000689
Application 14/486,485

6
layers of the Open Systems Interconnection (network) model, the G.711 and
H.264 protocols are also used to encode data not necessarily intended for
transmission over a network, such as audio or video intended for physical
storage on a hard drive, solid-state drive, or digital disc. Appellant’s
examples of “communication” or “transmission” protocols, while not strictly
limiting, establishes the claimed “communication protocols” are used for the
transmission of data after any encoding has occurred.
Appellant also argues that “Yin does not teach that button 126 adds a
second communication session using a different protocol as asserted by the
Action” (Reply Br. 6), and that
the Action merely assumes without support that if the button
blocks video, it unblocks video. Regardless of whether the
Examiner is correct, Yin would still not teach adding a second
communication because “unblocking” video teaches nothing
about adding a second communication session.
(Reply Br. 7, citing Yin 24:23–25.)
We also agree Appellant. The Examiner finds that
Yin teaches by clicking on element 126 (camcorder icon), user
is able to add video [equivalent to un-block] to the existing
communication and also remove video [equivalent to block]
from the existing communication.
(Ans. 5.) We cannot find support in Yin for the Examiner’s finding as the
portions of Yin that describe control button 126 do not refer to an un-
blocking operation. (See Yin Fig. 4, 24:15–28.)
While one skilled in the art would consider a second press of control
button 126 as a logical choice (from a user-interface perspective) to un-block
video blocked by the first press of control button 126, Yin appears silent as
any operations performed as a result of a second press of control button 126.
Appeal 2019-000689
Application 14/486,485

7
If a second press of the control button were to actually un-block video, Yin
is additionally silent regarding whether a new communication session would
be added. None of the remaining references appear to cure this deficiency.
Accordingly, we are constrained by the record to reverse the
Examiner’s rejections of independent claim 1, as well as independent claims
12 and 18 commensurate in scope, and all dependent claims.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated above, we affirm the obviousness rejections of
claims 1–3, 5–13, 15–19, 21, 24, and 25.
DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35
U.S.C. §
Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1–3, 5, 7, 8,
12, 13, 17–
19, 21, 24,
25
103 Yoakum, Yin 1–3, 5, 7,
8, 12, 13,
17–19,
21, 24, 25
6 103 Yoakum, Yin, Waters 6
9–11, 15, 16 103 Yoakum, Yin, Apple 9–11, 15,
16
Overall
Outcome
1–3, 5–
13, 15–
19, 21,
24, 25

REVERSED