Ex Parte Monsieux

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 21, 2018

13888317 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 21, 2018)

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.
13/888,317 05/06/2013 Daniel MONSIEUX PD120012 4948
24498 7590 02/23/2018
Robert D. Shedd, Patent Operations
THOMSON Licensing LLC
4 Research Way
3rd Floor
Princeton, NJ 08543
EXAMINER
BELETE, BERHANU D
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2468
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/23/2018 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):
uspto@technicolor.com
pat. verlangieri @ technicolor.com
russell. smith @ technicolor.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte DANIEL MONSIEUX
Appeal 2017-008319
Application 13/888,317
Technology Center 2400
Before ROBERT E. NAPPI, DENISE M. POTHIER, and
JOHNNY A. KUMAR, Administrative Patent Judges.
NAPPI, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the
rejection of claims 1 through 12. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b).
We affirm.
Appeal 2017-008319
Application 13/888,317
INVENTION
Appellant’s disclosed and claimed invention is directed to a home
gateway which is adapted to connect to a voice service and has a standby
service. Spec., Abstract. Claim 1 is illustrative of the invention and
reproduced below.
1. A gateway comprising:
a connector connecting a telephone to the gateway;
a modem configured to connect the gateway to a voice service;
a detection circuit configured to detect, at the gateway, a
request to make a telephone call;
a processor configured to:
initiate connection to the voice service responsive to the
detection of a request to make a telephone call;
indicate that voice service is being connected; and
upon connection to the voice service, transfer the telephone call
to the voice service.
REJECTION AT ISSUE1
The Examiner has rejected claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 8, 10, and 11 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Mundra et al. (US
2008/0162710 Al; pub. July 3, 2008) and Bossemeyer et al. (US
2002/0037004 Al; pub. Mar. 28, 2002). Final Act. 3-7.2
The Examiner has rejected claims 3 and 9 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Mundra, Bossemeyer and Kim (US 2004/0254683
Al; pub. Dec. 16, 2004). Final Act. 7—8.
1 Throughout this Decision we refer to the Appeal Brief filed September 15,
2015 and supplemented on March 30, 2016 (“ Br.”), Examiner’s Answer
mailed September 22, 2016 (“Ans.”), and the Final Action mailed February
27, 2015 (“Final Act.”).
2 We note that the statement of the rejection on page 3 of the Final Act. does
not include claim 7; however, the detailed discussion of the rejection
includes claim 7.
2
Appeal 2017-008319
Application 13/888,317
The Examiner has rejected claims 6 and 12 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over Mundra, Bossemeyer and Smith et al. (US
2007/0280208 Al; pub. Dec. 6, 2007). Final Act. 8-9.
ISSUES
Appellant argues on pages 7 through 9 of the Appeal Brief that the
Examiner’s obviousness rejection of claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 8, 10, and 11 is in
error.3 These arguments present us with the following issues:
a) Did the Examiner err in finding the combination of Mundra,
and Bossemeyer teaches a gateway comprising a modem as
recited in representative claim 1?
b) Did the Examiner err in finding the combination of Mundra,
and Bossemeyer teaches the processor indicates that the
voice service is being connected as recited in representative
claim 1?
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed Appellant’s arguments in the Appeal Brief, the
Examiner’s rejections, and the Examiner’s response to Appellant’s
arguments. Appellant’s arguments have not persuaded us of error in the
Examiner’s rejections of claims 1 through 12.
First issue
3 These arguments group claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 8, 10, and 11 together. We
select claim 1 as representative and decide the appeal based upon claim 1.
See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv).
3
Appeal 2017-008319
Application 13/888,317
Appellant’s arguments directed to the first issue assert that Mundra
teaches in Figure 1 that the modem (item 22) is separate from the gateway.
Br. 6—7 (citing Fig. 1). Further, Appellant asserts that Bossemeyer fails to
teach the gateway comprises a modem. Br. 8 (citing para’s 0033, 0035, and
0036).
The Examiner cites to paragraph 93 of Mundra to show the gateway
can include a modem. Ans. 2—3. We concur with the Examiner. We
additionally note that Mundra states, “[alternatively, a DSL or cable modem
might be integrated into the residential gateway.” See Mundra, para. 5.
Accordingly, Appellant’s arguments directed to the first issue have not
persuaded us of error in the Examiner’s rejection.
Second issue
Appellant’s arguments directed to the second issue assert that
Bossemeyer teaches in paragraph 35 that the processor determines that voice
service is requested and directs the voice service to be set up, but does not
teach the processor indicates that the voice service is being connected. Br.
8.
The Examiner responds to Appellant’s arguments finding that the
processor provides the indication in that it directs the call identification
system to indicate the call number. Ans. 3^4 (citing Bossemeyer paragraphs
33—35 and Figures 2—3).
Appellant’s arguments directed to the second issue have not
persuaded us of error in the Examiner’s rejection. Paragraph 33
Bossemeyer, cited by the Examiner, discusses the processor providing the
call identification module (item 58 in Figure 2) data concerning a call.
Appellant’s arguments focus on paragraph 35 of Bossemeyer, and Appellant
4
Appeal 2017-008319
Application 13/888,317
has not addressed the Examiners’ findings concerning the processor
interacting with the call identification module (discussed in paragraph 33).
Thus, Appellant has not identified an error in the Examiner’s finding that the
processor, through the call identification module, provides the claimed
indication that the voice service is being connected. As such, we are not
persuaded of error by Appellant’s arguments directed to the second issue and
sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 8, 10, and 11.
Appellant’s arguments directed to the rejections of claims 3, 6, 9 and
12 assert that the rejection is in error for the reasons discussed with respect
to claim 1 and because the additional teachings of Kim and Smith do not
make up for the deficiencies in the rejection of claim 1. Br. 9—11. As
discussed above, we are not persuaded of error in the rejection of claim 1;
thus, we are similarly not persuaded of error in the rejections of claims 3, 6,
9 and 12. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejections of claims 3,6,
9 and 12.
DECISION
We sustain the Examiner’s rejections of claims 1 through 12 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
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). See 37 C.F.R
§ 41.50(f).
AFFIRMED
5