Ex Parte Chen et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jul 29, 2013

10631947 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 29, 2013)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte ZHIHUI CHEN and KEITH CHU
____________________

Appeal 2010-010007
Application 10/631,947
Technology Center 2400
____________________

Before CARL W. WHITEHEAD, JR., ERIC S. FRAHM, and
ANDREW J. DILLON, Administrative Patent Judges.

FRAHM, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2010-010007
Application 10/631,947

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of
claims 1, 3, 6, 7, 9, 12, 13, 15, 18, and 20. Claims 2, 4, 5, 8, 10, 11, 14, 16,
17, 19, 21, and 22 have been canceled. We have jurisdiction under 35
U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
Exemplary Claim
Exemplary independent claim 1 under appeal, with emphasis added to
disputed portions of the claim, reads as follows:
Claim 1: A communication method for use by a first gateway device
to enable communication between a first modem and a second modem, said
first gateway device being capable of communicating with said first modem
over a first communication line, said first gateway device being capable of
communicating with a second gateway device over a packet network, said
second gateway device being capable of communicating with said second
modem over a second communication line, said method comprising:
receiving a call request for said first modem from said second
gateway device over said packet network;
placing a call to said first modem over said first communication line
in response to said receiving;
detecting an answer tone transmitted from said first modem over said
first communication line in response to said placing;
transmitting a first message indicative of said answer tone to said
second gateway device over said packet network;
detecting a phase reversal in said answer tone; and
transmitting a second message indicative of said phase reversal to
said second gateway device over said packet network.
Appeal 2010-010007
Application 10/631,947

3
The Examiner’s Rejection1
The Examiner rejected claims 1, 3, 6, 7, 9, 12, 13, 15, 18, and 20 as
being unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Appellant’s Admitted
Prior Art found in Figure 1 and at page 3, lines 9-14 and 18-20 and page 4,
lines 8-9 and 21-22 (hereinafter “AAPA”); and Schulzrinne et al., “RTP
PAYLOAD FOR DTMF DIGITS, TELEPHONY TONES AND TELEPHONY SIGNALS,”
Internet Engineering Task Force, pp. 1-22 (November 28, 1999)
(hereinafter, “Shulzrinne”). Ans. 3-7.
Principal Issue on Appeal
Based on Appellants’ arguments in the Briefs, the following principal
issue is presented on appeal:
Did the Examiner err in rejecting claims 1, 3, 6, 7, 9, 12, 13, 15, 18,
and 20 as being obvious over the combination of AAPA and Shulzrinne
because Shulzrinne, and thus the combination, fails to teach or suggest the
transmission of a first message indicative of an answer tone and a second
message indicative of a phase reversal in the answer tone, as recited in
representative claim 1?

1 Appellants do not present separate patentability arguments as to individual
ones of claims 3, 6, 7, 9, 12, 13, 15, 18, and 20 on appeal in the Appeal
Brief, and Appellants only make specific reference to claim 1 (see generally
App. Br. 11-19; Reply Br. 2-5). Because independent claim 1 contains
similar subject matter as remaining independent claims 7, 13, and 18,
primarily the transmission/reception of a first message indicative of an
answer tone and a second message indicative of a phase reversal in the
answer tone, we select claim 1 as representative of the group of claims 1, 3,
6, 7, 9, 12, 13, 15, 18, and 20 on appeal.
Appeal 2010-010007
Application 10/631,947

4
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejection in light of Appellants’
contentions in the Appeal Brief (App. Br. 11-19) and the Reply Brief (Reply
Br. 2-5) that the Examiner has erred.
We disagree with Appellants’ conclusion. We adopt as our own
(1) the findings and reasons set forth by the Examiner in the action from
which this appeal is taken (Ans. 3-7), and (2) the reasons set forth by the
Examiner in the Examiner’s Answer in response to Appellants’ Appeal Brief
(Ans. 7-11). We concur with the conclusion reached by the Examiner.
Representative claim 1 positively recites transmitting and receiving a
first message indicative of an answer tone, and a second message indicative
of a phase reversal.
We agree with the Examiner’s findings and determinations regarding
representative and independent claim 1 (Ans. 3-4 and 7-11). Specifically,
we agree with the Examiner (Ans. 4 and 8-10) that Shulzrinne discloses (i)
transmitting and receiving event packets constituting messages when events
are recognized (Shulzrinne, page 5, Section 3.6); and (ii) that detection
events can include an answer tone ANS: and a phase reversal detection event
/ANS: (Shulzrinne, page 8, Section 3.11; page 10, Table 3). We also agree
with the Examiner that “it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill
in the art at the time of the [Appellants’] invention to use the event packets
of Schulzrinne to send messages for the answer tone and phase-reversed
answer tone detection events in AAPA” (Ans. 4).
Appellants’ arguments (App. Br. 11-19; Reply Br. 2-5) that
Shulzrinne fails to teach or suggest transmitting/receiving the second
message that is indicative of a phase reversal are not persuasive in light of
Appeal 2010-010007
Application 10/631,947

5
the Examiner’s findings (see Ans. 4 and 8-10) that Shulzrinne sends a first
message when an answer tone event occurs, and sends a second message
when a phase reversal detection event occurs.
Appellants’ arguments (App. Br. 15-18) concerning Exhibits A, B, C,
and D submitted with the Appeal Brief are unpersuasive since these Exhibits
represent (i) a declaration by Appellants’ representative that the electronic
messages that comprise Exhibits B, C, and D are true and accurate copies of
those messages (i.e., no nexus is made to the claims on appeal and no
allegation of non-obviousness is present in Exhibit A); (ii) a non-standard
definition of /ANS as a 2100Hz cycle during which phase is reversed
(Exhibit B), and (ii) suggested changes to RFC2833 (Exhibits C and D),
both of which have no nexus to the independent claims on appeal (which do
not recite a “cycle” or “RFC2833”). Copies of messages concerning
proposed changes, whether true and accurate or not, are unpersuasive to
show error in the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of the subject matter of
claims 1, 7, 13, and 18 relating to a gateway device and communication
method relying on the transmission/reception of messages relating to an
answer tone and a phase reversal detection over the combination of AAPA
and Shulzrinne.
In view of the foregoing, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of
claims 1, 3, 6, 7, 9, 13, 15, 18, and 20 over the combination of AAPA and
Shulzrinne.

Appeal 2010-010007
Application 10/631,947

6
CONCLUSION
The Examiner has not erred in rejecting independent claims 1, 3, 6, 7,
9, 12, 13, 15, 18, and 20 as being obvious over the combination of AAPA
and Shulzrinne because Shulzrinne teaches or suggests the transmission of a
first message indicative of an answer tone and a second message indicative
of a phase reversal in the answer tone, as recited in representative claim 1.

DECISION
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 3, 6, 7, 9, 12, 13, 15, 18, and 20
is affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED

tkl