Avaya Inc.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jul 16, 2020

14691253 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Jul. 16, 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.
14/691,253 04/20/2015 Mehmet C. Balasaygun 4366-722 9654
48500 7590 07/16/2020
SHERIDAN ROSS P.C.
1560 BROADWAY, SUITE 1200
DENVER, CO 80202
EXAMINER
SPRINGER, JAMES E
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2454
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/16/2020 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):
cjacquet@sheridanross.com
edocket@sheridanross.com
pair_Avaya@firsttofile.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte MEHMET C. BALASAYGUN, GORDON R. BRUNSON,
JOEL M. EZELL, ERIC D. COOPER, and RIFAAT SHEKH-YUSEF
Appeal 2019-002273
Application 14/691,253
Technology Center 2400
Before ST. JOHN COURTENAY III, LINZY T. McCARTNEY, and
CARL L. SILVERMAN, Administrative Patent Judges.
McCARTNEY, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant1 seeks review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the Examiner’s
final rejection of claims 1, 2, 4–12, and 14–19. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.

1 Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Avaya Inc. Appeal Brief 2,
filed September 11, 2018 (Appeal Br.).
Appeal 2019-002273
Application 14/691,253

2
BACKGROUND
This patent application concerns the “handling of early media in
communication devices.” Specification ¶ 1, filed April 20, 2015. Claim 1
illustrates the claimed subject matter:
1. A method comprising:
sending a Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) INVITE
message to establish a call;
in response to sending the SIP INVITE message, receiving
first and second SIP provisional response messages;
receiving a first media stream associated with one of the
first or the second SIP provisional response messages;
playing the first media stream;
receiving a second media stream associated with the other
one of the first or the second SIP provisional response messages;
determining that the first and second media streams are
received within a first time period; and
in response to receiving the second media stream,
discarding the first media stream in favor of playing the second
media stream.
Appeal Br. 16.

Appeal 2019-002273
Application 14/691,253

3
REJECTIONS
Claims 35 U.S.C. § References
1, 4, 7–9 103 Ginde,2 Mumick3
2, 5, 11, 12, 14,
15, 17, 18 103 Ginde, Mumick, Kannan
4
6, 16 103 Ginde, Mumick, Kannan, Okumura5
10, 19 103 Ginde, Mumick, Garcia6
DISCUSSION
Claim 1 recites “determining that the first and second media streams
are received within a first time period” (the determining limitation). Appeal
Br. 16. For this limitation, the Examiner found that Ginde teaches the recited
first and second media streams and that Mumick teaches a “predefined time
period” during which an “early media notification is played.” Final Action
3–4, mailed June 13, 2018 (Final Act.). The Examiner reasoned that because
claim 1 does “not recite performing any function responsive to this”
limitation, “applying a generic time limit (such as that disclosed by Mumick)
to . . . Ginde meets the disputed limitation.” Examiner’s Answer 4, mailed
December 27, 2018 (Ans.).
Appellant argues that the Examiner has not shown that the
combination of Ginde and Mumick teaches or suggests the determining
limitation. See Appeal Br. 8–9; Reply Brief 6–7, filed January 23, 2019.

2 Ginde (US 2013/0246632 A1; September 19, 2013).
3 Mumick et al. (US 2016/0156782 A1; June 2, 2016).
4 Kannan et al. (US 2009/0110171 A1; April 30, 2009).
5 Okumura et al., Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) Usage of the
Offer/Answer Model, Internet Eng’g Task Force, Request for Comments:
6337 (August 2011).
6 Garcia et al. (US 2006/0250988 A1; November 9, 2006).
Appeal 2019-002273
Application 14/691,253

4
Appellant contends Mumick’s “predefined time period” is “clearly different
from the first time period in claim 1” and thus the combination of Ginde and
Mumick does not teach or suggest the determining limitation. Appeal Br. 8.
Appellant has persuaded us that the Examiner erred. Even if claim 1
does “not recite performing any function responsive to” the determining
limitation, the Examiner was not free to ignore aspects of this limitation
when determining whether the limitation would have been obvious. The
determining limitation requires determining that first and second media
streams “are received within a first time period” Appeal Br. 16 (emphasis
added). The cited parts of Mumick disclose “transmit[ting] an early media
notification . . . for a predefined time period.” Mumick ¶ 17. The Examiner
did not adequately explain why transmitting data for a “predefined time
period” teaches or suggests determining whether the recited media streams
are received during that period, nor did the Examiner otherwise sufficiently
account for this limitation. On this record, we thus do not sustain the
Examiner’s rejection of claim 1 and its dependent claims under § 103.
Because the Examiner’s rejection of independent claim 11 under § 103
suffers from a similar flaw, we also do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection
of independent claim 11 and its dependent claims under § 103.

Appeal 2019-002273
Application 14/691,253

5
CONCLUSION
The following table summarizes our decision for claims 1, 2, 4–12,
and 14–19, the claims before us on appeal:

Claims
Rejected 35 U.S.C. § References/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1, 4, 7–9 103 Ginde, Mumick 1, 4, 7–9
2, 5, 11, 12,
14, 15, 17,
18
103 Ginde, Mumick, Kannan
2, 5, 11,
12, 14, 15,
17, 18
6, 16 103 Ginde, Mumick, Kannan, Okumura 6, 16
10, 19 103 Ginde, Mumick, Garcia 10, 19
Overall
Outcome
1, 2, 4–12,
14–19

REVERSED