Ex Parte Krenn

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Apr 30, 2010

10170190 (B.P.A.I. Apr. 30, 2010)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________________

Ex parte ANDREAS KRENN
____________________

Appeal 2009-006333
Application 10/170,1901
Technology Center 2400
____________________

Decided: April 30, 2010
____________________

Before ROBERT E. NAPPI, KENNETH W. HAIRSTON,
and MARC S. HOFF, Administrative Patent Judges.

HOFF, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

1 The real party in interest is Siemens Aktiengesellschaft.
Appeal 2009-006333
Application 10/170,190

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a Final Rejection of
claims 1-9, 11-18, and 20-24. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.
Appellant’s invention concerns a method for setting up and
controlling a conference circuit between subscriber terminals connected to
different network nodes of a telecommunications network and an internet
protocol network wherein the most suitable starting point for establishing a
conference circuit is automatically determined on the basis of stored routing
information with regard to the relevant subscribers. Specifically, an
optimized pattern of connections of the conference circuit is calculated in a
switching computer and server based on at least one routing information
item. This connection set-up request and connection data is transmitted to a
first and a second selected switching center. The connections are
automatically set-up and controlled at both the first and second switching
center (Spec. paras. [0006], [0021], and [0022]).
Claim 1 is exemplary:
1. A method for setting up and controlling a conference circuit between
subscriber terminals connected to different network nodes of at least one of a
telecommunication network and an internet protocol network, comprising:
transmitting an instruction for establishing the conference circuit from
one of a subscriber terminal and an agent terminal of a call center to one of a
switching computer and a server in the network storing at least one routing
information item with respect to parties who will use the conference circuit;
calculating an optimized pattern of connections of the conference
circuit in the one of a switching computer and a server based on the at least
one routing information item;
transmitting to at least a first selected switching center of a plurality of
selected switching centers a connection set-up request and connection data
2
Appeal 2009-006333
Application 10/170,190

indicating the pattern of connections based on one of a result of said
calculating;
distributing the connection set-up request to at least a second selected
switching center of the plurality of selected switching centers; and
automatically setting up and controlling the connections to the
subscriber terminals at the at least first selected switching center and the at
least second selected switching center of the plurality of selected switching
centers in dependence on the connection data.

The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Detampel, Jr. US 5,995,608 Nov. 30, 1999
Lu US 6,611,590 Aug. 26, 2003
Simard US 6,940,826 B1 Sep. 6, 2005
Shaffer US 6,976,055 B1 Dec. 13, 2005

Claims 1-8, 11-17, and 20-22 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over Detampel in view of Simard.
Claims 9 and 18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Detampel in view of Simard and Shaffer.2
Claims 23 and 24 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Detampel in view of Simard and Lu.
Rather than repeat the arguments of Appellant or the Examiner, we
make reference to the Appeal Brief (filed February 19, 2008), the Reply
Brief (filed June 27, 2008), and the Examiner’s Answer (mailed April 29,
2008) for their respective details.

2 Typographical error exists in reciting the applied references in the rejection
(Final Rej. 15, App. Br. 4 and Ans. 15).
3
Appeal 2009-006333
Application 10/170,190

ISSUE
The Examiner finds that transmitting and distributing connection
requests to more than one switch is well known in the art (Ans. 5). The
Examiner finds that Detampel discloses transmitting a connection set up
request and connection data to a selected switching center (Ans. 22). The
Examiner finds that Simard discloses transmitting the connection set up
request and connection data to a first, second, and third switching center
(Ans.22). The Examiner finds that the combined system of Detampel and
Simard discloses the argued claim invention (Ans. 22).
Appellant contends that bridge servers disclosed in the references are
not equivalent to "a plurality of selected switching centers" (App. Br. 7).
Appellant’s contentions present us with the following issue:
Does either of the references disclose transmitting a connection set-up
request and connection data to at least a first and a second switching center?

FINDINGS OF FACT
The following Findings of Fact (FF) are shown by a preponderance of
the evidence.
The Invention
1. According to Appellant, the invention relates to a method for
setting up and controlling a conference circuit between subscriber terminals
connected to different network nodes of a telecommunications network and
an internet protocol network wherein the most suitable starting point for
establishing a conference circuit is automatically determined on the basis of
stored routing information with regard to the relevant subscribers.
Specifically, an optimized pattern of connections of the conference circuit is
4
Appeal 2009-006333
Application 10/170,190

calculated in a switching computer and server based on at least one routing
information item. This connection set-up request and connection data is
transmitted to a first and a second selected switching center. The
connections are automatically set-up and controlled at both the first and
second switching center (Spec. paras. [0006], [0021], and [0022]).
Detampel
2. Detampel discloses dynamic allocation of the bridge servers by
Conference Allocation and Control System (CACS) 103 wherein routing
bridging information in a database is stored to calculate the best optimized
conference connection. Specifically, call router module 302 receives a
routing request from over network 109 from the SCP pair 105. The CACS
103 selects a bridge server 101 with enough available capacity to handle the
maximum number of conference participants allowed by the service (e.g.,
20), allocates the capacity, and returns routing instructions in terms of a
POTS or ONNET translation number through the SCP pair 105. The
decision of which bridge 101a - n coupled to the Public Switched Telephone
Network (PSTN) 102 in FIG. 1 should receive the call can be based on
selection criteria that consider availability, load control, least-cost routing
and component failure. (col. 5, ll. 29-42; col. 6, ll. 40-48; col. 6, l. 65-col. 7,
l. 4; col. 7, ll. 25-50; col. 8, ll. 27-40; col. 8, l. 61-col. 9, l. 31).
Simard
3. Simard discloses interlocking a plurality of conference bridges
wherein a first, second, and third packet-based central conference bridge
140, 142, and 144 are coupled together to receive voice data packets
corresponding to a subset of all the participants in a voice conference (Figs.
12A-C; col.19, ll. 15-35).
5
Appeal 2009-006333
Application 10/170,190

4. Simard discloses that a standard telephone switch 20 couples to
a central conference bridge 24 and a plurality of telephone handsets 22,
wherein the telephone switch 20 forwards any voice communications
received from the handsets 22 to the central conference bridge 24 for
controlling the conference session using a standard algorithm (Fig. 1, col. 1,
ll. 13-25).

PRINCIPLES OF LAW
On the issue of obviousness pursuant to 35 U.S.C § 103, the Supreme
Court has stated that “the obviousness analysis cannot be confined by a
formalistic conception of the words teaching, suggestion, and motivation.”
KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 419 (2007). Further, the Court
stated “[t]he combination of familiar elements according to known methods
is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results.”
Id. at 416. “One of the ways in which a patent’s subject matter can be
proved obvious is by noting that there existed at the time of the invention a
known problem for which there was an obvious solution encompassed by the
patent’s claims.” Id. at 419-420.

ANALYSIS
Claims 1-8, 11 -17, 20-22
Independent claim 1 recites “transmitting to at least a first selected
switching center of a plurality of selected switching centers a connection set-
up request and connection data indicating the pattern of connections based
on one of a result of said calculating; distributing the connection set-up
request to at least a second selected switching center of the plurality of
6
Appeal 2009-006333
Application 10/170,190

selected switching centers.” Independent claims 11 and 20 recite similar
claim limitations.
The Examiner finds that transmitting and distributing connection
requests to more than one switch is well known in the art (Ans. 5). The
Examiner finds that Detampel discloses transmitting a connection set up
request and connection data to a selected switching center (Ans. 22). The
Examiner finds that Simard discloses transmitting the connection set up
request and connection data to a first, second, and third switching center
(Ans. 22). The Examiner finds that the combination of Detampel and
Simard discloses the claimed invention (Ans. 22).
Appellant contends that bridge servers disclosed in the references are
not equivalent to "a plurality of selected switching centers" (App. Br. 7).
Appellant contends that Simard does not teach or suggest "distributing the
connection set-up request to at least a second selected switching center of
the plurality of selected switching centers" because the communication
between bridges in Simard simply includes voice data and an original source
address of the participant (App. Br. 7-8). Appellant contends that the
Examiner finds that a "switching center" per se is taught by a disclosure of a
"bridge server" without any further support or explanation (Reply Br. 5).
Although Detampel discloses dynamic selection of the most optimum
bridge server and a bridge server that couple to the public switched
telephone network (PSTN) (FF 2) and Simard discloses a plurality of bridge
servers coupled to one another (FF 3), the combined teachings do not
disclose that there are a plurality of switching centers, nor that at least a first
and a second switching center receive a connection set-up request and
connection data indicating the pattern of connections based on a calculated
7
Appeal 2009-006333
Application 10/170,190

optimized pattern of connections, as required by independent claims 1, 11,
and 20. Furthermore, although Simard discloses that a telephone switch 20
couples to a central conference bridge 24 (FF 4) and that a plurality of
conference bridges may be interlocked (FF 3), Simard is silent as to whether
the telephone switches connected to the conference bridges receive
connection set-up requests along with connection data, as required by the
claims.
We find that the combined teachings of Detampel and Simard do not
disclose all the limitations of independent claims 1, 11, and 20. Thus, we
find error in the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 11, and 20 and that of
dependent claims 2-8, 12-17, and 21-22 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 (a) as being
unpatentable over Detampel in view of Simard, and we will not sustain the
rejection.
Claims 9 and 18
Appellant argues that claims 9 and 18 are patentable over the cited
prior art because claims 9 and 18 depend from respective claims 1and 11
(App. Br. 8).
As noted supra, we reversed the rejection of claims 1 and 11 from
which claims 9 and 18 depend. We have reviewed Shaffer (the additional
reference applied by the Examiner to reject these claims), and find that
Shaffer does not teach the limitations deemed to be absent from Detampel
and Simard.
We therefore reverse the Examiner’s rejection of claims 9 and 18
under 35 U.S.C. § 103, for the same reasons expressed with respect to the
rejection of respective parent claims 1 and 11, supra.
8
Appeal 2009-006333
Application 10/170,190

Claims 23-24
Appellant argues that claims 23-24 are patentable over the cited prior
art because claims 23-24 depend from claim 20 (App. Br. 9).
As noted supra, we reversed the rejection of claim 20 from which
claims 23-24 depend. We have reviewed Lu (the additional reference
applied by the Examiner to reject these claims), and find that Lu does not
teach the limitations deemed to be absent from Detampel and Simard.
We therefore reverse the Examiner’s rejection of claims 23-24 under
35 U.S.C. § 103, for the same reasons expressed with respect to the rejection
of parent claim 20, supra.

CONCLUSION
None of the references discloses transmitting a connection set-up
request and connection data to at least a first and a second switching center.

ORDER
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-9, 11-18, and 20-24 is reversed.

9
Appeal 2009-006333
Application 10/170,190

REVERSED

ELD

STAAS & HALSEY LLP
SUITE 700
1201 NEW YORK AVENUE, N.W.
WASHINGTON, DC 20005

10