Ex Parte Gass et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jul 26, 2013

10849131 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 26, 2013)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
_____________

Ex parte RAYMOND GASS
and FRANCOIS PINIER
_____________

Appeal 2012-003245
Application 10/849,131
Technology Center 2400
______________

Before MAHSHID D. SAADAT, ROBERT E. NAPPI, and LYNNE E.
PETTIGREW, Administrative Patent Judges.

NAPPI, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal 2012-003245
Application 10/849,131

2

This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the rejection
of claims 1, 4 through 13, 15, 17, and 19 through 24.
We affirm.
INVENTION
The invention is directed to a system in which a media gateway
controller communicates with and controls a stimuli terminal (dumb
terminal). See pages 1-2 of Appellants’ Specification. Claim 1 is
representative of the invention and reproduced below:
1. A communication system comprising:
a media gateway controller; and
at least one stimuli telecommunication terminal that is
connected to the media gateway controller, and acts as a media
gateway,
wherein said terminal is remotely controlled by said
controller,
wherein a gateway function, that supports an Internet
transfer protocol, is provided within or associated to said
controller, and associates said terminal and controller to use the
Internet transfer protocol,
wherein said Internet transfer protocol comprises a
Hypertext Transfer Protocol, and said controller and said
terminal is connected based on an H.248 protocol, and
wherein, using the Hypertext Transfer Protocol, said
controller enables downloading of a file at said terminal.

REJECTION AT ISSUE
The Examiner has rejected claims 1, 4 through 13, 15, 17, and 19
through 24 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over White (US
Appeal 2012-003245
Application 10/849,131

3

6,785,653 B1), El-Gabaly (US 2003/0002478 A1) and Hayashi (US
2001/0024965 A1). Answer 4-14.1

ISSUES
Appellants argue on pages 10 through 14 and of the Appeal Brief that
the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1 is in error. These arguments present us
with the issues:
a) did the Examiner err by finding the combination of the references
teaches a media gateway controller that controls a stimuli terminal
as recited in claim 1?
b) did the Examiner err by finding the skilled artisan would have
combined the references such that the controller and terminal are
connected based upon a H.248 protocol and Hypertext Transfer
Protocol is used to enable the controller to download file at the
terminal?

ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellants’
contentions that the Examiner has erred. Further, we have reviewed the
Examiner’s response to Appellants’ arguments. We disagree with
Appellants’ conclusion that the Examiner erred in finding the combination
of the references teaches a media gateway controller that controls a stimuli

1 Throughout this opinion we refer to the Examiner’s Answer mailed on
October 27, 2011, Appellants’ Brief dated July 26, 2011, and Reply Brief
dated December 13, 2011.
Appeal 2012-003245
Application 10/849,131

4

terminal and that the skilled artisan would have combined the references
such that the controller and terminal are connected based upon H.248
protocol and Hypertext Transfer Protocol is used to enable the controller to
downloading of at the terminal.
First Issue
Appellants’ arguments on pages 10 and 11 of the Brief center on the
assertion that White’s gateway (item 1 Figure 1) does not control the
terminal (item 7 Figure 1) and that El-Gabaly’s gateway (item 306 Figure 3)
does not control the terminal (316, Figure 3). Brief 10-11. We disagree.
Initially, we note that the Examiner relies upon the communication between
El-Gabaly’s item 304 (not 306 as argued by Appellants) and terminal item
316 to teach a connection between gateway and terminal based upon a H.248
protocol. Answer 6. Further, the Examiner finds that White teaches the
media content is delivered to the terminal (terminal 7) via the gateway and
as such teaches the terminal is remotely controlled by the gateway. Answer
5, 6, and 16. We concur with the Examiner. The cited passages of White
demonstrate there is bi-directional communication between the controller
and the terminal, and the communications to the terminal control the
terminal to present responses to the user queries. Accordingly, Appellants’
arguments directed to the first issue have not persuaded us that the Examiner
erred in finding that the combination of the references teaches a media
gateway controller that controls a stimuli terminal as recited in claim 1.
Second Issue
Appellants’ arguments similarly have not persuaded us that the
Examiner erred by finding that the skilled artisan would have combined the
Appeal 2012-003245
Application 10/849,131

5

references such that the controller and terminal are connected based upon
H.248 protocol and Hypertext Transfer Protocol is used to enable the
controller to download file at the terminal. Appellants assert the skilled
artisan would not have combined the references because downloading using
H.248 protocol currently is impossible and White and El-Gebaly are directed
to fixed phones which are different from Hayashi’s mobile phone. Brief 12-
13.2 We disagree with Appellants’ conclusion. The Examiner has shown
that establishing connections using H.248 was known and that downloading
files to phones using Hypertext Transfer Protocol was also well known.
Answer 6-7, 16-17. We note, contrary to Appellants’ arguments, claim 1
does not teach downloading to an H.248 terminal, but rather downloading to
a terminal (stimuli telecommunications terminal) which the Examiner has
equated to the phone taught by White. We also note that White is not
limited to a fixed phone but encompasses other types of terminals, see e.g.,
Figure 4 and accompanying description in column 8, lines 25-51.
Appellants’ arguments directed to the second issue have not persuaded us
that the Examiner erred in finding a skilled artisan would have combined the
references such that the controller and terminal are connected based upon a
H.248 protocol and Hypertext Transfer Protocol is used to enable the
controller to download file at the terminal as recited in claim 1.

2 We note claim 1 does not recite downloading using the H.248 protocol,
claim 1 merely states that the connection is based upon the H.248 protocol.
Further, if the claim were so limited, it is not entirely clear how Appellants’
Specification would provide an enabling disclosure of using the H.248
protocol to download a file, if H.248 currently does not permit downloading.
Appeal 2012-003245
Application 10/849,131

6

DECISION
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 4 through 13, 15, 17, and 19
through 24 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

msc