Ex Parte Chou et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jun 28, 2012

10953089 (B.P.A.I. Jun. 28, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte WU CHOU, JUAN JENNY LI,
LI LI, and FENG LIU
____________

Appeal 2010-003532
Application 10/953,089
Technology Center 2400
____________

Before JOSEPH L. DIXON, ST. JOHN COURTENAY III, and
ANDREW J. DILLON, Administrative Patent Judges.

DIXON, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2010-003532
Application 10/953,089

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a rejection of claims
1-25. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
The claims are directed to session initiation protocol (SIP)-based
converged communications. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of
the claimed subject matter:
1. An apparatus for use in a communication system, the
apparatus comprising:

a processing element comprising a processor coupled to a
memory;

the processing element implementing an endpoint of the
system;

the endpoint comprising a session initiation protocol
component configured for communication via session initiation
protocol signaling with one or more other endpoints of the
system;

the endpoint further comprising a web services
component configured for interfacing the session initiation
protocol component to one or more communication service
applications of the system.

REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Horvitz

Wang
US 2003/0131142

US 2005/0063411
July 10, 2003

Mar. 24, 2005

Appeal 2010-003532
Application 10/953,089

3
REJECTION
Claims 1-25 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Wang and Horowitz.

ANALYSIS
Appellants admit that “Wang teaches the interfacing between an
application and SIP agent by using a web service component” (Reply Br. 8).
However, Appellants argue that Wang’s web services component is used to
interface the SIP agent to an application executing on the same device as the
SIP agent, in contrast to claim 1 (App. Br. 21). Claim 1, Appellants argue,
requires that “the web service component is capable of interfacing the SIP
component with applications that are executing on devices that are different
from the device on which the SIP component is executing” (Reply Br. 7).
We disagree.
Claim 1 does not require that the “one or more communication service
applications” be executing on a different device than the “session initiation
protocol component” because claim 1 does not specify where the
applications are executing. Rather, claim 1 merely recites that the
applications be “one or more communication service applications of the
system.” The “session initiation protocol component” is implemented by an
“apparatus for use in a communication system.” Because the claimed
apparatus is used in the communication system, claim 1 encompasses an
embodiment where the applications are executing on the apparatus—the
same apparatus that implements the session initiation protocol component.
In other words, an application executing on the claimed apparatus is “of the
system.” Accordingly, even if Appellants are correct that Wang’s system
Appeal 2010-003532
Application 10/953,089

4
requires an SIP agent and communication service application executing on
the same device, Appellants’ argument is not persuasive as it is not
commensurate with the scope of claim 1.
Appellants’ argument that “Wang cannot be used for remotely
updating nodes in the communications system” (App. Br. 21, emphasis
removed) is also not commensurate with the scope of claim 1 because there
is no recitation of remotely updating nodes. Appellants’ arguments that
Wang does not disclose “that web services are used to transport Session
Initiation Protocol (SIP) signaling” (App. Br. 22), and that Wang does not
disclose “SIP signaling that is contained inside web service messages”
(Reply Br. 8) are not persuasive because claim 1 does not recite signaling
through web services or web service messages. Rather, the claimed web
services component is “for interfacing” the session initiation protocol
component to applications, which Appellants admit Wang discloses (see
Reply Br. 8).
Additionally, Appellants’ argument that Horvitz does not disclose a
“web services component configured for interfacing the session initiation
protocol component to one or more communication service applications”
(App. Br. 23-26; Reply Br. 8) is not persuasive, as Wang discloses this per
Appellants’ admission, as discussed above.
We therefore are not persuaded that the Examiner erred in rejecting
claim 1, and claims 2-25 not separately argued.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
The Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 1-25 under 35 U.S.C. §
103(a).
Appeal 2010-003532
Application 10/953,089

5

DECISION
For the above reasons, we affirm the rejections of claims 1-25.
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). See 37
C.F.R. § 41.50(f).

AFFIRMED

tkl