Avaya Inc.Download PDFPatent Trials and Appeals BoardJul 24, 202014882783 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Jul. 24, 2020) Copy Citation 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. 14/882,783 10/14/2015 Sanjog Kotnis 4366-777 1754 48500 7590 07/24/2020 SHERIDAN ROSS P.C. 1560 BROADWAY, SUITE 1200 DENVER, CO 80202 EXAMINER AUNG, AYE M ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2452 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 07/24/2020 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 SANJOG KOTNIS, SREEKANTH SUBRAHMANYA NEMANI, MOHAN VINAYAK PHADNIS, ANAND KRISHNA PADHYE, JOEL EZELL, ERIC COOPER, HARSH V. MENDIRATTA, TIBOR LUKAC, and STEPHEN ANDREW BAKER ____________ Appeal 2019-002326 Application 14/882,783 Technology Center 2400 ____________ Before ELENI MANTIS MERCADER, NORMAN H. BEAMER, and GARTH D. BAER, Administrative Patent Judges. BAER, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2019-002326 Application 14/882,783 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s Final rejection of claims 1, 5–9, and 13–19. Claims 2–4, 10–12, and 20 are indicated as containing allowable subject matter. Appeal Br. 2. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We REVERSE. BACKGROUND A. The Invention Appellant’s invention is directed to “SIP communication systems” in which “[i]n response to an event, such as a first network interface failing, a SIP INVITE with replaces header message is sent by [a] first communication device with a second address of the first communication device.” Spec. ¶¶ 1, 3. Independent claim 1 is representative and reproduced below: 1. A method comprising: establishing, by a processor, a communication session between a first communication device and a second communication device, wherein the communication session comprises a first dialog between an application server and the first communication device and wherein the first communication device uses a first network address in the first dialog; receiving, by the processor, a SIP INVITE with replaces header message from the first communication device with a second network address of the first communication device; and in response to receiving the SIP INVITE with replaces header message from the first communication 1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies Avaya Inc. as the real party in interest. Appeal Br. 2. Appeal 2019-002326 Application 14/882,783 3 device with the second network address of the first communication device, reestablishing, by the processor, the first dialog between the application server and the first device using the second network address. Appeal Br. 13 (Claims Appendix). B. The Rejections on Appeal The Examiner rejects claims 1, 6, 8, 9, 14, 16, 17, and 19 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Davis (US 2015/0256680 A1; Sept. 10, 2015) and Rice (US 2009/0031029 A1; Jan. 29, 2009). Final Act. 2. The Examiner rejects claims 5, 7, 13, 15, and 18 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Davis, Rice, and Hromoko (US 2013/0152175 A1; June 13, 2013). Final Act. 6. ANALYSIS We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellant’s arguments. Arguments Appellant could have made but chose not to make are deemed to be waived. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv). A. Obviousness Rejection of Claims 1, 6, 8, 9, 14, 16, 17, and 19 Appellant argues that “Rice does not teach that the new IP address/port information are in a SIP INVITE with replaces header message. As discussed in the Appeal Brief, a SIP replaces header is a specific SIP header.” Reply Br. 5, citing SIP RFC 3891 (emphasis in original). Appellant contends that Appellant is clearly claiming the SIP INVITE with replaces header message (a known term in the SIP art) as disclosed in the Specification via RFC 3891. As discussed above in RFC 3891 (the Specification), the SIP INVITE with replaces header Appeal 2019-002326 Application 14/882,783 4 message clearly has a specific replaces header message as recited in claim 1. Reply Br. 6. We agree. The Examiner finds that Rice discloses “a SIP INVITE with replace header message” in paragraph [0008], [0052] and claim 4. The paragraph [0008] of Rice discloses in response to detecting a change in the IP address for the device from the media packets, send notification message to the client device and then receiving a registration message from the client device to reestablish the signaling session. The paragraph [0052] of Rice discloses the message options may be used for achieving the purpose of re- establishing signaling session. The option is SIP registration message. In claim 4 of Rice discloses [a] SIP registration message comprises a session initiation protocol (SIP) invite message. Ans. 3–4. However, this combination of portions of Rice does not disclose the SIP with replaces header as defined by RFC 3891, and the Examiner does not explain how these portions of Rice would suggest the SIP replaces header. We agree with Appellant that one skilled in the art would understand the claimed “SIP INVITE with replaces header” to be that defined by RFC 3891, as Appellant’s disclosure does not suggest an alternate definition that deviates from RFC 3891. The remaining reference fails to cure this deficiency. Accordingly, we sustain the obviousness rejection of independent claim 1, as well as independent claims 3 and 17 commensurate in scope, and all dependent claims. Appeal 2019-002326 Application 14/882,783 5 CONCLUSION In summary: REVERSED Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 1, 6, 8, 9, 14, 16, 17, 19 103 Davis, Rice 1, 6, 8, 9, 14, 16, 17, 19 5, 7, 13, 15, 18 103 Davis, Rice, Hromoko 5, 7, 13, 15, 18 Overall Outcome 1, 5–9, 13– 19 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation