Ex Parte Hua et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 18, 2017

14480911 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 18, 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.
14/480,911 09/09/2014 Yonghong Hua ARC-P176-1C 7108
32566 7590 09/20/2017
PATFNT T AW GROUP T T P
EXAMINER
PO Box 61839 KASSIM, KHALED M
Sunnyvale, CA 94088
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2468
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/20/2017 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):
sandy @ patentlawgroup .com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte YONGHONG HUA, ZHISHAN ZHUANG, and
HUAGUI ZHOU
Appeal 2017-005620
Application 14/480,9111
Technology Center 2400
Before LINZY T. McCARTNEY, NATHAN A. ENGELS, and
JAMES W. DEJMEK, Administrative Patent Judges.
ENGELS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a rejection of claims
1—20. Claims 10 and 17—20 are subject to objection as being dependent
upon a rejected base claim, in addition to a provisional double-patenting
rejection. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
1 Appellants identify ArcSoft, Inc. as the real party in interest. Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal 2017-005620
Application 14/480,911
ILLUSTRATIVE CLAIM
Independent claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed
subject matter:
1. A method for a first Voice over Internet Protocol
(VoIP) device to communicate with a second VoIP device over
an Internet Protocol (IP) network, comprising:
communicating at least one dual-tone multi-frequency
(DTMF) code with the second VoIP device over a telephone
network to synchronize time between the first and the second
VoIP devices;
recording a local time at the first VoIP device when the
first and the second VoIP devices are synchronized by said
communicating as a first synchronization base time;
keeping a first synchronization time comprising the local
time at the first VoIP device minus the first synchronization base
time;
transmitting a first voice packet to the second VoIP device
over the IP network, the first voice packet including the first
synchronization time when the first voice packet was
transmitted;
receiving a second voice packet from the second VoIP
device over the IP network, the second voice packet including a
second synchronization time when the second voice packet was
transmitted from the second VoIP device, the second
synchronization time comprising a local time at the second VoIP
device minus a second synchronization base time at the second
VoIP device, the second synchronization base time comprising
the local time at the second VoIP device when the first and the
second VoIP devices are synchronized from said
communicating; and
determining a network delay as a difference between the
first and the second synchronization times.
2
Appeal 2017-005620
Application 14/480,911
THE REJECTIONS
Claims 1—20 stand rejected on the ground of non-statutory
obviousness-type double patenting over claims 1—18 of Hua et al.
(US 8,873,543 B2; Oct. 28, 2014) (“Hua”). See Final Act. 2.
Claims 1, 2, 5, and 6 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable in view of Eidson et al. (US 5,566,180; Oct. 15, 1996)
(“Eidson”) and Siegrist et al. (US 2002/0101853 Al; Aug. 1, 2002)
(“Siegrist”). See Final Act. 3—6.
Claims 3, 4, 15, and 16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable in view of Eidson, Siegrist, and Hepworth et al.
(US 2004/0073690 Al; Apr. 15, 2004) (“Hepworth”). See Final Act. 6-8.
Claims 7—9, 11, and 14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable in view of Eidson, Siegrist, and Usuda et al.
(US 2004/0179474 Al; Sept. 16, 2004) (“Usuda”). See Final Act. 9-12.
Claims 12 and 13 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable in view of Eidson, Siegrist, Usuda, and Hepworth.
See Final Act. 12—14.
ANALYSIS
Provisional Obviousness-Type Double Patentins
Appellants did not address the merits of the provisional2 obviousness-
type double patenting rejection in their Appeal Brief. See Appeal Br. 3—8;
2 A provisional double patenting rejection will be converted into a double
patenting rejection when the first application, which is the basis for the
rejection, publishes as an application publication or issues as a patent.”
MPEP § 1504.06. We leave it to the Examiner to revise the rejection, as
appropriate.
3
Appeal 2017-005620
Application 14/480,911
Reply Br. 1—5. Accordingly, we summarily sustain the provisional
obviousness-type double patenting rejection of claims 1—20. See Final
Act. 2.
Prior Art Rejections
Claim 1 recites, in relevant part, recording “a first synchronization
base time,” wherein the first synchronization base time comprises the local
time at a first VoIP device when the first and the second VoIP devices are
synchronized. Claim 1 further recites transmitting a first voice packet
including “the first synchronization time,” wherein the first synchronization
time comprises the current local time at the first VoIP device minus “the first
synchronization base time.”
In rejecting claim 1 as unpatentable over Eidson and Siegrist, the
Examiner found Eidson teaches “a first synchronization base time” with
Eidson’s generating of a transmitting timestamp that reflects a first node’s
local time when a timing packet is transmitted (i.e., the transmission time).
Final Act. 3 (citing Eidson, Figs. 10, 11, col. 3,11. 5—30, col. 7,11. 22—55);
Ans. 4. Further, the Examiner found Eidson teaches “the first
synchronization time” with Eidson’s first node transmitting a first
synchronization message including the transmission time. Final Act. 4
(citing Eidson, Figs. 10, 11, col. 3,11. 5—30, col. 7,11. 22—55). In addition,
the Examiner found Eidson teaches “the first synchronization time” with its
A to B (or B to A) apparent propagation time, which is calculated by
computing the local times when timing packet detectors at Node A and Node
B see (i.e., receive or detect) a timing packet originating from Node A and
sent to Node B (or the local times when Node B and Node A see a timing
4
Appeal 2017-005620
Application 14/480,911
packet sent from Node B to Node A). Final Act. 16 (citing Eidson, col. 7,11.
20-40); Ans. 4.
Appellants contend the Examiner erred in finding the combination of
Eidson and Siegrist teaches or suggests transmitting a voice packet including
“the first synchronization time,” as recited in claim 1. Appeal Br. 3—6;
Reply Br. 1—3. Appellants argue that in Eidson, neither of the nodes records
the local time when they were synchronized and that Eidson therefore does
not teach or suggest “the first synchronization time” determined from “the
first synchronization base time.” Appeal Br. 5.
Having considered the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellants’
arguments and the evidence of record, we agree with Appellants that the
Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1. Eidson discloses a method for
syntonizing and synchronizing the local clocks within nodes of a loosely
distributed network system. Eidson, Title, Abstract, col. 2,11. 47 49. As
cited by the Examiner, Eidson discloses that a first node sends a second node
a first timing packet that is recognized and detected by the first node’s time
packet detector (TPD), which generates a transmitting timestamp that
reflects the local transmission time, as measured by the first node’s clock.
Eidson, col. 3,11. 7—10. Eidson further discloses that the transmission time
and an identifier of the first timing packet are subsequently transmitted by
the first node in a first synchronization message. Eidson, col. 3,11. 12—14.
But these disclosures of Eidson do not support the Examiner’s finding that
Eidson teaches “the first synchronization time” based on “the
synchronization base time.” In other words, the Examiner has not provided
adequate evidence that Eidson’s transmission time is based on a local time
recorded at the first node when the first and second nodes are synchronized.
5
Appeal 2017-005620
Application 14/480,911
As additionally cited by the Examiner, Eidson discloses using a TPD
for measuring propagation delay between two nodes. Eidson, col. 7,11. 23—
25, Fig. 10. More specifically, Node A sends Node B timing packet “a” that
is seen by Node A’s TPD at a local time of 100ns and by Node B’s TPD at a
local time of 80 ns. Eidson, col. 7,11. 25—27, Fig. 10. Next, Node B sends
Node A timing packet “b” that is seen by Node B’s TPD at a local time of
200 ns and by Node A’s TPD at a local time of 300 ns. Eidson, col. 7,
11. 27—30, Fig. 10. Eidson further discloses that “[a]fter the two nodes
exchange a second set of synchronization messages, each containing the
respective measured time, each node can compute that the A to B apparent
propagation time is -20 ns and the B to A apparent propagation time is 100
ns. The average of these is the actual delay, 40 ns.” Eidson, col. 7,11. 32—37.
These additional disclosures of Eidson, however, also do not support the
Examiner’s finding that Eidson teaches “the first synchronization time”
based on “the synchronization base time.” In other words, the Examiner has
not provided adequate evidence that any of Eidson’s A to B propagation
time, B to A propagation time, or the average thereof, is based on a local
time recorded at one of the nodes when Node A and Node B are
synchronized.
In view of the foregoing, the cited disclosures of Eidson do not
support the Examiner’s finding that Eidson teaches or suggests “the first
synchronization time” and related steps recited in claim 1. Further, the
Examiner does not cite any of the Siegrist, Usuda, Hepworth, or Hua
references as teaching or suggesting this claim limitation. See Final Act. 2—
14; Ans. 3—8. Additionally, the Examiner has not provided an adequate
rationale to fill the gaps in the cited prior art. See Final Act. 2—14; Ans. 3—8.
6
Appeal 2017-005620
Application 14/480,911
Accordingly, we reverse the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a). For the same reasons, we reverse the Examiner’s rejections
of claims 2—9 and 11—16, each of which depends from claim 1.
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s decision provisionally rejecting claims 1—
20 on the ground of non-statutory, obviousness-type double patenting.
We reverse the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1—9 and 11—16
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
Because we have affirmed at least one ground of rejection with
respect to each claim on appeal, the Examiner’s decision is affirmed. See 37
C.F.R. § 41.50(a)(1).
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
7