Espen Berger et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Dec 27, 2019

13113501 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Dec. 27, 2019)

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.
13/113,501 05/23/2011 Espen BERGER 0370.2916C/981112-US.02 9769
99499 7590 12/27/2019
Edell, Shapiro, & Finnan, LLC
9801 Washingtonian Blvd.
Suite 750
Gaithersburg, MD 20878
EXAMINER
PATEL, YOGESHKUMAR G
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2651
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/27/2019 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):
epatent@usiplaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte ESPEN BERGER, PASCAL BÜHLER,
and JAN ASLE KROKNES
Appeal 2018-001368
Application 13/113,501
Technology Center 2600
Before MELISSA A. HAAPALA, NABEEL U. KHAN, and
SHARON FENICK, Administrative Patent Judges.
FENICK, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–5, 7–9, 11, 12 and 14–18. See
Appeal Br. 2.2 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b)(1).
We AFFIRM.

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 Cisco Technology,
Inc. Appeal Brief (“Appeal Br.,” filed Apr. 26, 2017) 1.
2 This Decision refers to Appellant’s Appeal Brief, the Examiner’s Final
Office Action (“Final Act.,” mailed Sept. 29, 2016) and Answer (“Ans.,”
mailed Aug. 23, 2017), and the original Specification (“Spec.,” filed May
23, 2011).
Appeal 2018-001368
Application 13/113,501
2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Appellant’s specification describes video conferencing among video
conferencing clients, each connected to a central unit (the “media switching
conference server” or “MSCS”) over a communication network. Spec.
1:14–16, 5:4–13; Fig. 1. A client announces to the MSCS which video
resolutions of media streams are available from the client; the MSCS
publicizes the availability of these streams and requests the streams
subscribed to by other clients. Id. 5:26–6:4, 6:19–22, 7:19–25. A media
stream received at the MSCS is relayed to other clients who have subscribed
to that media stream. Id. 8:9–18. A client can subscribe or unsubscribe to
media streams depending on the needs of the client. Id. 10:5–7, 10:22–31,
11:32–12:10.
Claim 1, reproduced below with certain limitations italicized for
emphasis, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. A method comprising:
establishing connections, at a server, to at least two client
devices using a call control protocol, the call control protocol
negotiating video formats and connection information for
sending and receiving media streams;
receiving information from a first client device at the
central server, the information comprising meta-data describing
different media streams having different qualities that the first
client device is configured to transmit;
transmitting the information received from the first client
device to a second client device, wherein the second client device
determines, in response to receiving the information on the
different media streams the first client device is configured to
transmit, a quality, wherein the quality includes resolution or
size, and media stream from the available media streams from
the first client device the second device will subscribe to;
Appeal 2018-001368
Application 13/113,501
3
receiving a first subscribe message from the second client
device at the central server, subscribing to at least one available
media stream from the first client device;
in response to receiving the first subscribe message from
the second client device, transmitting, by the central server, a
message instructing the first client device to start transmitting
one or more media streams subscribed to by the second client
device, the message including multiple video resolutions at
which the first client device is to transmit the one or more media
streams based on capabilities of the second client device;
receiving, by the server, the one or more media streams
subscribed to by the second client device from the first client
device;
transmitting, by the server, the one or more media streams
subscribed to by the second client device to the second client
device;
receiving, by the server, an unsubscribe message from the
second client device, unsubscribing to at least one of the media
streams subscribed to by the second client device;
receiving, by the server, a second subscribe message from
the second client device, subscribing to at least one other
available media stream from the first client device; and
in response to receiving the second subscribe message and
the unsubscribe message from the second client device,
transmitting, by the central server, a message instructing the first
client device to start transmitting media streams subscribed to by
the second client device, and to stop transmitting media streams
unsubscribed to by the second client device.

REFERENCE
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is:
Name Reference Date
Johansen et al. (“Johansen”) WO 2005/048600 A1 May 26, 2005
Luo et al. (“Luo”) US 2007/0086366 A1 Apr. 19, 2007
Moore et al. (“Moore”) US 2007/0294346 A1 Dec. 20, 2007
Punj et al. (“Punj”) US 2005/0237931 A1 Oct. 27, 2005

Appeal 2018-001368
Application 13/113,501
4
REJECTIONS
Claims 1–5, 7, 9, 11, 12, 17, and 18 are rejected under pre–AIA 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Johansen, Luo, and Moore.
Final Act. 2–9.
Claims 8 and 14–16 are rejected under pre–AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Johansen, Luo, Moore, and Punj. Final Act. 10–13.
OPINION
Claims 1–5 and 7
Appellant asserts several errors in the Examiner’s findings relating to
three limitations of claim 1: (a) “receiving a first subscribe message from the
second client device at the central server, subscribing to at least one
available media stream from the first client device”; (b) “receiving, by the
server, a second subscribe message from the second client device,
subscribing to at least one other available media stream from the first client
device”; and (c) “transmitting, by the central server, a message instructing
the first client device to start transmitting media streams subscribed to by the
second client device, and to stop transmitting media streams unsubscribed to
by the second client device.” Appeal Br. 11–15.
First disputed limitation
For the teaching of the first disputed claim limitation of claim 1
(“receiving a first subscribe message . . .”), the Examiner finds Johansen
discloses a MCU (Multipoint Control Unit) receiving media streams from
different audiovisual terminals, formulating a media plan based on the
capabilities of the endpoints, and propagating media from sender to receiver.
Final Act. 3–4 (citing Johansen 2:6–12). The Examiner further finds that
Johansen discloses a hybrid conference, in which each endpoint can select
Appeal 2018-001368
Application 13/113,501
5
from among incoming video streams for local view. Ans. 15 (citing
Johansen 5:1–31). The Examiner finds that “[i]t is known in the art that for
an endpoint to join an audio/video conference, it requires subscription” and,
further, that Luo teaches a subscribe request message sent when a member
source subscribes to a stream. Id. at 15–16 (citing Luo ¶ 63).
Appellant argues that Johansen teaches that the MCU formulates a
media plan, and therefore, “in Johansen, the MCU does not receive a
subscribe message from the second client device subscribing to a media
stream from the first device because the MCU determines the media plan.”
Appeal Br. 11–12. We are unpersuaded by this argument. We agree with
the Examiner that Johansen teaches an endpoint subscribing and
unsubscribing from specific media streams. In particular, Johnansen
dicloses that a hybrid conference could be one in which “audio is mixed at
the MCU and each endpoint selects and decodes one or more incoming
video stream for local view.” Johansen, 5:29–31. We further agree with the
Examiner that Luo discloses a client (“member node” or “member source” in
Luo) that can subscribe or unsubscribe to any stream at any time during the
videoconference, with a “subscription/unsubscription request” sent to the
originating member node for the relevant stream. See Ans. 15–16 (citing
Luo ¶ 63). Thus, we agree with the Examiner that the combination of cited
elements from Luo and Johansen would have taught or suggested this first
disputed claim limitation to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Second disputed limitation
For the teaching of the second disputed claim limitation of claim 1
(“receiving, by the server, a second subscribe message from the second
client device, subscribing to at least one other available media stream from
the first client device”), the Examiner cites Luo’s disclosure that member
Appeal 2018-001368
Application 13/113,501
6
sources can unsubscribe and resubscribe to streams in the video conference.
Final Act. 6 (citing Luo ¶ 63).
Appellant’s first argues that Luo is deficient because “[t]he audio and
video streams of Luo are not different resolutions or sizes.” Appeal Br. 14.
However, this argument relies on an assumption that the “at least one other
available media stream” referred to in this claim limitation as the subject of
the second subscribe message must have a different resolution or size from
the “at least one available media stream,” which is the subject of the claimed
first subscribe message. We disagree that the claim contains such a
requirement. While the claim requires that the “different media streams”3
have “different qualities,” the claim does not require that each of the
“different media streams” be of a different resolution and size than each
other one of the “different media streams.” The claim requires that the
second client device determine both a quality (including resolution or size)
and a media stream from among “available media streams”; however, these
determinations are not specifically linked to the first subscribe message or
the second subscribe message, or the “at least one available media stream”
and “at least one other available media stream,” which are the subjects of
those subscription requests. Additionally, this determination is not made a
second time, so the claim does not require that a second determination is
made, or that a second quality, different from the first, would be the result of
such a second determination.
Appellant next argues that Luo only teaches subscribing or
unsubscribing to the same stream, namely the audio portion of the stream.

3 We note that there is no description in the claim of what the relationship is
between “different media streams.”
Appeal 2018-001368
Application 13/113,501
7
Appeal Br. 14. We are not persuaded by this argument. Luo discusses
unsubscribing to an audio stream as an example; however, Luo also
discloses that “[a] member source can subscribe or unsubscribe to any
stream at any time during the video conference.” Luo ¶ 63 (emphasis
added). Thus, we agree with the Examiner that Luo teaches a client
subscribing or unsubscribing to more than just one stream. Additionally, we
note that the different available media streams of different qualities are
found by the Examiner to be taught by Johansen (Final Act. 3), and so, even
were Luo deficient in this respect, upon considering what the combined
teachings of the references would have suggested to one of ordinary skill in
the art, we agree with the Examiner’s finding that the disputed claim
limitation is taught by the prior art combination.
Third disputed limitation
For the teaching of the third disputed claim limitation of claim 1
(“transmitting, by the central server, a message instructing the first client
device to start transmitting media streams subscribed to by the second client
device, and to stop transmitting media streams unsubscribed to by the
second client device”), the Examiner cites Luo’s description of clients
subscribing or unsubscribing to any stream at any time, and Moore’s
disclosure of sending a command to a node transmitting a video stream that
is not being used to stop transmitting. Final Act. 6–7 (citing Luo ¶ 63;
Moore ¶ 6.)
Appellant argues that Moore’s conference server “may instruct a non-
active participant to stop communicating video” but “does not act because
the second client device has unsubscribed.” Appeal Br. 15. We do not find
reversible error in light of this argument because Appellant attacks the
references individually rather than the combined teachings of the prior art as
Appeal 2018-001368
Application 13/113,501
8
a whole. One cannot show non-obviousness by attacking references
individually where the rejection is based on a combination of references. In
re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981). Appellant's argument is
premised on what Appellant contends Moore teaches individually, and not
the combined teachings of the cited portions of the references (Luo and
Moore) and what the combined teachings would have suggested to one of
ordinary skill in the art.
Conclusion – Claims 1–5 and 7
Having considered all of Appellant’s arguments with respect to claim
1 and found no reversible error in the Examiner’s rejection, we sustain the
Examiner’s rejection of claim 1. Claims 2–5 and 7 are argued with claim 1,
and we sustain the rejection of these claims as well.
Claims 9, 11, 12, 17, and 18
Claims 9, 11, 12, 17, and 18 contain substantially similar limitations
to claim 1. Appellants present arguments for these claims that mirror the
arguments addressed for claim 1. Appeal Br. 16–20, 22–26. For the same
reasons provided above, we find no reversible error in the Examiner’s
rejections of these claims, and we sustain these rejections.
Claim 14
Appellant presents an argument for claim 14 that mirrors the first
argument one discussed above with reference to claim 1. Appeal Br. 21.
We are unpersuaded by this argument for the reasons discussed above.
Appellant additionally argues that the Examiner errs in finding that
Punj, with Johansen, Luo, and Moore, teach “performing an optimization for
the at least one available media stream, and transmit a second subscribe
message to the server including a resolution change for the optimization.”
Appeal 2018-001368
Application 13/113,501
9
Id. at 21–22. In particular, Appellant argues that “[t]he bandwidth
utilization of Punj is not related to a second subscribe message to the server
including a resolution change for the optimization.” Id. at 22. We are not
persuaded by this argument. We agree with the Examiner that Luo discloses
that a user can decide to change the quality of the stream during a video
conference. Ans. 25; see Luo ¶ 64. We further agree Punj teaches
renegotiating bandwidth and transmitting messages regarding resolution
changes for optimizing a media stream (participants can ask to lower their
video bandwidths). Final Act. 12; Ans. 24–25; see Punj ¶¶ 416, 417, 448.
Thus, we agree with the Examiner that the cited combination of references
would have taught or suggested this disputed limitation of claim 14.
Appellant additionally argues that Punj teaches away from the use of a
conferencing bridge or MCU. Appeal Br. 22. Appellant cites one paragraph
of Punj (paragraph 5334) in support of this argument; however, this
paragraph does not characterize the entire disclosure of Punj, or relate to the
paragraphs cited by the Examiner in the Final Action. See Final Act. 12
(citing Punj ¶¶ 416, 417, 448, 451). We note Punj discloses a hub and spoke
conferencing arrangement. Punj ¶¶ 183–185, Figure 10. A teaching away
argument requires more than the disclosure of a different configuration. A
teaching away requires a reference to actually criticize, discredit, or
otherwise discourage the claimed solution. See In re Fulton, 391 F.3d 1195,
1201 (Fed. Cir. 2004).

4 Appellant quotes from Punj and cites to paragraph 445, however we
believe this to be a typographical error as the quotation given is from
paragraph 533 of Punj and paragraph 445 does not relate to the subject
matter of the quotation provided.
Appeal 2018-001368
Application 13/113,501
10
Having considered all of Appellant’s arguments with respect to claim
14 and found no reversible error in the Examiner’s rejection, we sustain the
Examiner’s rejection of claim 14.
Claims 8, 15, 16
No arguments were presented for claims 8, 15, and 16. Arguments
regarding independent claims from which these claims depend, directly or
indirectly, have been addressed above and we have determined no reversible
error.
CONCLUSION
We affirm the Examiner’s rejections of claims 1–5, 7–9, 11, 12 and
14–18 as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
More specifically,
DECISION SUMMARY
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reverse
d
1–5, 7, 9,
11, 12, 17,
and 18
103 Johansen, Luo, and
Moore
1–5, 7, 9, 11,
12, 17, and
18

8 and 14–16 103 Johansen, Luo, Moore,
and Punj
8 and 14–16
Overall
Outcome:
1–5, 7–9, 11,
12, 14–18

TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(1)(iv).
AFFIRMED