Ex Parte Syrett et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 22, 2017

14110277 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 22, 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.
14/110,277 10/07/2013 Mark Syrett 83700272 1831
56436 7590 09/26/2017
Hewlett Packard Enterprise
3404 E. Harmony Road
Mail Stop 79
Fort Collins, CO 80528
EXAMINER
CHENG, CHI TANG P
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2463
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/26/2017 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):
hpe.ip.mail@hpe.com
chris. mania @ hpe. com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte MARK SYRETT, FREDERIC HUVE, and SANJEEVA MANVI
Appeal 2017-002987
Application 14/110,2771
Technology Center 2400
Before THU A. DANG, TERRENCE W. McMILLIN, and
SCOTT E. BAIN, Administrative Patent Judges.
BAIN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
Final Rejection of claims 2—10, 12, 13, and 15—18, which constitute all
claims pending in the application. Claims 1,11, and 14 have been cancelled.
We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.
1 Appellants identify Hewlett Packard Enterprise Development LP and
Hewlett Packard Enterprise as the real parties in interest. App. Br. 1.
Appeal 2017-002987
Application 14/110,277
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The Claimed Invention
Appellants’ invention relates to improving fault tolerance in
audio/video conference sessions, and specifically, logging commands for
transferring the conference session to a new server. Abstract; Spec. Tflf 1, 10.
Claims 5,12, and 17 are independent. Claim 5 is representative of the
invention and the subject matter of the appeal, and reads as follows (with the
disputed limitations emphasized):
5. A method comprising:
logging, by an availability service executing in a system
having a processor, commands relating to a conference session
being handled by a first conference server, wherein the
commands are exchanged between an application server and the
first conference server, wherein logging the commands
comprises logging a command to create the conference session
and logging a command for a user to join the conference
session',
detecting, by the availability service, failure of the first
conference server; and
in response to detecting the failure, the availability
service using the logged commands to transfer the conference
session to a second conference server.
App. Br. i (Claims App.).
The Rejections on Appeal
Claims 2, 3, 5—7, 9, 10, 12, 13, and 15—17 stand rejected under pre-
AIA 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as anticipated by Caballero-McCann et al. (US
7,916,855 B2; Mar. 29, 2011) (“Caballero”). Final Act. 6-11.
2
Appeal 2017-002987
Application 14/110,277
Claims 4, 8, and 18 stand rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over Caballero and Tran et al. (US 2006/0179147 Al;
Aug. 10, 2006) (“Tran”). Id. at 12-13.2
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of the arguments
raised in the Briefs. On the record before us, we cannot sustain the
Examiner’s rejections.
Appellants argue the Examiner erred in finding Caballero discloses
“logging . . . commands relating to a conference session,” and particularly
logging “a command to create the conference session” and “a command for
a user to join the conference session,” as recited in independent claim 5.
App. Br. 8—10 (emphasis added).3 Appellants argue Caballero’s disclosure
of storing (and restoring, in the event of system failure) “dialog” in a
communications session merely refers to the substantive content of a
communication (e.g., text in an online chat session), not the commands
necessary to restore an audio/video communication as in Appellants’
claimed invention. Id. Accordingly, Appellants argue one of ordinary skill
in the art would not understand Caballero’s description of storing “dialog” as
disclosing the foregoing specific “commands” recited in claim 5. We are
persuaded by Appellants’ argument.
2 The Examiner’s rejection under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 112, second
paragraph, was withdrawn in the Answer. Ans. 2.
3 Appellants argue independent claims 5, 12, and 17, which recite limitations
commensurate in scope (including the disputed limitations) as a group. App.
Br. 8. We choose claim 5 as representative of the group. See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(l)(iv).
3
Appeal 2017-002987
Application 14/110,277
As the Examiner finds, Caballero describes “establishing a
communication session by exchanging dialog.” Caballero, col. 1,11. 38-40;
Ans. 3—5. If a “failure occurs during the communication session, an
endpoint receives the stored dialog from . . . persistent storage,” and restores
“the received dialog onto a protocol stack to continue the communication
session without loss of dialog.” Id. at col. 1,11. 43^46 (emphasis added).
The Examiner finds that because the “dialog” in Caballero establishes the
communication session, Caballero discloses “logging . . . commands relating
to a conference session,” as recited in claim 5. Ans. 3—5. The flaw in this
finding, however, is that Caballero further discloses the “dialog” is
“restored” following failure of the communication session and subsequent
reconnection, suggesting one of ordinary skill in the art would understand
the dialog in Caballero as the substance of the communication, not control
commands relating thereto. App. Br. 9, 11.
Moreover, the logging of commands recited in claim 5 includes
“logging a command for a user to join the conference session.'” App. Br. i
(emphasis added). The Examiner has not explained, on the record before us,
how Caballero’s “dialog” could correspond to this claim limitation. The
Examiner cites general “teachings” of Caballero, but claim 5 stands rejected
as anticipated, not obvious, and the “teachings” the Examiner cites do not
appear directed to commands for a “user to join” a conference session. Ans.
2,4.
Accordingly, we do not sustain the rejection of independent claims 5,
12, and 17 as anticipated by Caballero. We further do not sustain the
rejections of the remaining claims, all of which depend from claims 5, 12, or
17.
4
Appeal 2017-002987
Application 14/110,277
DECISION
We REVERSE the Examiner’s rejections of claims 2—10, 12, 13, and
15-18.
REVERSED
5