12983334 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 31, 2017)

Ex Parte Dasgupta et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardOct 31, 2017

12983334 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 31, 2017)

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. 12/983,334 01/03/2011 SATTAM DASGUPTA 1864.056US1 1130 40317 7590 11/02/2017 GLOBAL IP SERVICES, PLLC 121 MOORE ST PRINCETON, NJ 08540 EXAMINER MOHAMMED, ASSAD ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2651 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 11/02/2017 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): pnama@globalipservices.com docketing@globalipservices.com pradeep @ globalipservices. com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte SATTAM DASGUPTA and ANIL KUMAR AGARA VENKATESHA RAO1 Appeal 2016-006754 Application 12/983,334 Technology Center 2600 Before CARLA M. KRIVAK, HUNG H. BUI, and JOESEPH P. LENITIVECH, Administrative Patent Judges. KRIVAK, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s Final Rejection of claims 1—29. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. 1 Appellants identify the real party in interest as Ittiam Systems (p) Ltd. See Appeal Br. 3. Appeal 2016-006754 Application 12/983,334 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants’ invention is directed to “to providing an audio/video bridge on endpoints that are capable of Internet protocol (IP) video communication” (Spec. ]f2). Independent claim 1, reproduced below, is exemplary of the subject matter on appeal. 1. A method for providing an in-built audio/video bridge on endpoints that are capable of video communication over Internet protocol (IP), comprising: connecting to a modified video communication terminal (MVCT), two or more terminals selected from the group consisting of video communication terminals (VCTs) and voice over IP communication terminals (VoCTs) via an IP network, wherein the MVCT includes an audio/video bridging module (AVBM): and enabling audio and video bridging of audio and video streams of the MVCT and encoded incoming audio and video streams from the two or more terminals via the IP network by the AVBM for conferencing participants, wherein the AVBM comprises: an audio/video synchronizing module (AVSM) for synchronizing the audio and video streams of the MVCT and synchronizing the incoming audio and video streams from the two or more terminals for conferencing the participants. REFERENCES and REJECTIONS The Examiner rejected claims 1, 12, 16, and 27 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based upon the teachings of Jeong (US 7,817,180 B2, issued Oct. 19, 2010) andHuart (US 7,136,398 Bl, issued Nov. 14, 2006). The Examiner rejected claims 2—8 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based upon the teachings of Jeong, Huart, and Amao (US 2012/0050456 Al, published Mar. 1,2012). 2 Appeal 2016-006754 Application 12/983,334 The Examiner rejected claims 9, 18—25, and 28 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based upon the teachings of Jeong, Huart, Amao, and Taylor (US 2012/0013705 Al, published Jan. 19, 2012). The Examiner rejected claims 10, 11, 14, 15, 26, and 29 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based upon the teachings of Jeong, Huart, Amao, Taylor, and Jing (US 2011/0109715 Al, published May 12, 2011). The Examiner rejected claims 13 and 17 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based upon the teachings of Jeong, Huart, and Taylor. ANALYSIS Appellants contend neither Jeong nor Huart discloses an audio/video bridging module (AVBM) comprises “an audio/video synchronizing module (AVSM) for synchronizing the audio and video streams of the MVCT and synchronizing the incoming audio and video streams from the two or more terminals for conferencing the participants” as claimed (Br. 7—8). Particularly, Appellants contend Huart does not include an ASVM for synchronizing the audio and video streams of the MVCT and the video and audio conference bridges are not “conference participant’s conference devices (i.e., not an end point participating in the conference)” (Br. 8). As the Examiner finds, and we agree, Jeong teaches an MVCT including an AVBM, but not an AVSM; however, the Examiner relies on Huart for the AVSM. In particular, Jeong teaches a conferencing bridge of participants’ devices allowing the participants to communicate over any network (Ans. 14). In Jeong, there is a central distributor acting as a bridge, therefore the bridging device is also a participant {id.). Huart also discloses a conferencing system (conferencing bridge) having a “functionality being a 3 Appeal 2016-006754 Application 12/983,334 problem that provides the ability to synchronize all the conferencing feeds (audio/visual) in order to stream the (audio/video) feeds at the same time to all participants” (emphasis omitted) (Ans. 15). The Examiner clarifies that although Huart does not explicitly disclose a synchronizing module as part of a participant’s conferencing device, Jeong teaches a participant’s computer includes a central distributer that “receives data from all participants’ devices and processes the conference data to all participants during a conference session” (Ans. 15; Final Act. 4). The Examiner, therefore, finds it would have been obvious to put the functionality of Huart’s AVSM synchronizer (Huart, Figs. 1, 2) into Jeong’s participant bridge (MVCT (including a participant’s computer 105, including central distributer 125 (conferencing bridge) of participant D’s computer) being the AVBM) (Ans. 15)). The Examiner has presented reasoning supported by a rational underpinning that claims 1, 12, 16, and 27 are obvious over the combination of Huart and Jeong, which arguments Appellants do not persuasively address. Thus, for the above reasons, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 12, 16, and 27, argued together, and claims 2—11, 13—15. 17—26, 28, and 29, argued for their dependence from claims 1, 12, 16, and 27. DECISION The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1—29 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)(l)(iv). AFFIRMED 4