Ex Parte Barazesh et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Nov 18, 2010

10438109 (B.P.A.I. Nov. 18, 2010)

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.
10/438,109 05/14/2003 Bahman Barazesh 10-10-8-1-1 4645
46900 7590 11/18/2010
MENDELSOHN, DRUCKER, & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
1500 JOHN F. KENNEDY BLVD., SUITE 405
PHILADELPHIA, PA 19102
EXAMINER
NGUYEN, THANH T
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2448
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
11/18/2010 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte BAHMAN BARAZESH, KANNAN RAJAMANI,
STEVEN C. SZEP, NITIN KUMAR VARMA,
and TOMASZ JANUSZ WOLAK
____________

Appeal 2009-006615
Application 10/438,109
Technology Center 2400
____________

Before MARC S. HOFF, CARLA M. KRIVAK, and
THOMAS S. HAHN, Administrative Patent Judges.

KRIVAK, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL1

1 The two-month time period for filing an appeal or commencing a civil
action, as recited in 37 C.F.R. § 1.304, or for filing a request for rehearing,
as recited in 37 C.F.R. § 41.52, begins to run from the “MAIL DATE”
(paper delivery mode) or the “NOTIFICATION DATE” (electronic delivery
mode) shown on the PTOL-90A cover letter attached to this decision.
Appeal 2009-006615
Application 10/438,109

2
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of
claims 1-3, 7-10, 12-16, 19-23, and 26.2 We have jurisdiction under 35
U.S.C. § 6(b). We reverse.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants’ claimed invention relates to a method and apparatus for
adjusting controllable parameters of an Internet Protocol (IP) audio device,
particularly, real time tuning of the device parameters (Spec. 1:8-9).
The Examiner rejected claims 1-3, 7-10, 12-16, 19-23, and 26 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over various combinations of Siegrist (US 7,075,921
B1), Scott (US 6,760,324 B1), Iyer (US 2003/0030676 A1), and Dagtas (US
2003/0167174 A1).
Appellants assert the claims as amended by the Amendment After
Final are allowable over the cited references, as Siegrist does not disclose
communications in real time and Scott, relied on by the Examiner for this
feature, does not cure Siegrist’s deficiencies (App. Br. 6-10).
The Examiner disagrees with Appellants (Ans. 18). The Examiner
however, as Appellants assert, misquotes and mischaracterizes Appellants’
arguments (Reply Br. 2-3). We agree. We additionally find the Examiner
did not address Appellants’ arguments with respect to Scott (App. Br. 8). In
particular, the third and fourth bullet points in the Answer did not cite to
Scott, but rather cited portions of Siegrist and Iyer and provided no

2 Although the Examiner listed the rejected claims as claims 1-3, 5-17,and
19-26 (Ans. 3, 12) this listing does not reflect the claim amendments and
cancellations made by the Amendment after Final filed August 10, 2007, and
entered by the Advisory Action of August 29, 2007.

Appeal 2009-006615
Application 10/438,109

3
discussion as to how or why Siegrist and Iyer are relevant to the argument
against Scott or how these references are combinable to obtain Appellants’
invention (Ans. 18).
Thus, the Examiner’s did not address and thus, did not find error in,
Appellants’ arguments regarding how combining Siegrist, Scott, and the
remaining references would not result in Appellants’ claimed invention.

DECISION
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-3, 7-10, 12-16, 19-23, and
26 is reversed.

REVERSED

KIS

MENDELSOHN, DRUCKER, & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
1500 JOHN F. KENNEDY BLVD., SUITE 405
PHILADELPHIA, PA 19102