Ex Parte Xia

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Nov 26, 2014

11892922 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 26, 2014)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte MUQIANG XIA
____________

Appeal 2012-007748
Application 11/892,922
Technology Center 2400
____________

Before STEPHEN C. SIU, DENISE M. POTHIER, and
IRVIN E. BRANCH, Administrative Patent Judges.

POTHIER, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 1–12, 15–21, and 24–29. Claims 13, 14, 22, and 23 have
been canceled. Br. 3
1
We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We
affirm.

1
Throughout this opinion, we refer to the Appeal Brief (Br.) filed December
9, 2011 and (2) the Examiner’s Answer (Ans.) mailed January 12, 2012.
Appeal 2012-007748
Application 11/892,922

2
Invention
Appellant’s invention relates to a method for Internet Protocol-based
(IP-based) service transport, so that services of voice, facsimile, data, and
other, may be set up and transferred successfully over an IP bearer while
saving transport bandwidth as much as possible. See Spec. ¶16. Claim 1 is
reproduced below with emphasis:
1. A method for Internet Protocol-based service transport,
comprising:
negotiating, by a calling media gateway controller and a called
media gateway controller, a first codec scheme for service transport
by performing an out of band codec negotiation before a call is
established;
after the call is established, initiating, by the calling media
gateway controller and the called media gateway controller, requests
for detecting a characteristic signaling relating to a service to a
calling media gateway and a called media gateway correspondingly,
wherein the calling media gateway is controlled by the calling media
gateway controller and the called media gateway is controlled by the
called media gateway controller;
upon detection of the characteristic signaling relating to the
service by performing an inband signaling detection, reporting, by
the calling media gateway or the called media gateway, the
characteristic signaling relating to the service to the calling media
gateway controller or the called media gateway controller;
determining, by one of the calling media gateway controller and
the called media gateway controller, a type of the service according
to the characteristic signaling, and switching, by the calling media
gateway controller and the called media gateway controller, the first
codec scheme to a second codec scheme corresponding to the type of
the service; and
performing, by the calling media gateway and the called media
gateway, a corresponding type of service transport by using the
second codec scheme.

Appeal 2012-007748
Application 11/892,922

3
The Examiner relies on the following as evidence of unpatentability:
Fruth US 2003/0123097 A1 July 3, 2003
Walker US 2003/0193696 A1 Oct. 16, 2003
Baumann WO 2004/045182 A1 May 27, 2004
2

Gesswein US 2005/0091392 A1 Apr. 28, 2005

B. Foster et al., Basic Media Gateway Control Protocol (MGCP) Packages
1–64
3
(Dec. 2003), available at http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3660 (“RFC
3660”).

The Rejections
Claims 1–3, 7, 12, 20, 21, 28, and 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Baumann, Gesswein, and RFC 3660.
Ans. 6–18.
Claims 4, 6, 10, 11, 15, 16, 18, 19, 26, and 27 are rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Baumann, Gesswein, RFC 3660, and
Walker. Ans. 18–30.
Claims 5 and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Baumann, Gesswein, RFC 3660, and Fruth. Ans. 30–33.
Claims 8, 9, 17, and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Baumann, Gesswein, RFC 3660, Fruth, and Walker.
Ans. 33–41.

2
The Examiner further refers to US 2006/0013194 A1 published January 19,
2006 in English when discussing Baumann (WO 2004/045182 A1).
3
These page numbers correspond to the page numbering within this
reference.
Appeal 2012-007748
Application 11/892,922

4
OBVIOUSNESS REJECTION OVER BAUMANN, GESSWEIN,
AND RFC 3660

Regarding independent claim 1, the Examiner finds that Baumann
teaches many of its limitations, except for the recited negotiating step and
initiating steps in paragraphs 1 and 2 of claim 1. Ans. 6–8. The Examiner
turns to the Gesswein and RFC 3660 to teach these missing limitations and
provides a reason to combine these teachings with Baumann.
Appellant argues Baumann fails to teach or suggest the “upon
detection” or the “determining” steps in claim 1. App. Br. 8–11.

ISSUES
(1) Under § 103, has the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1 by
finding that Baumann, Gesswein, and RFC 3660 collectively would have
taught or suggested:
(a) upon detection of the characteristic signaling relating to the service
by performing an inband signaling detection, reporting, by the calling media
gateway or the called media gateway, the characteristic signaling relating to
the service to the calling media gateway controller or the called media
gateway controller; and
(b) determining, by one of the calling media gateway controller and
the called media gateway controller, a type of the service according to the
characteristic signaling, and switching, by the calling media gateway
controller and the called media gateway controller, the first codec scheme to
a second codec scheme corresponding to the type of the service?

Appeal 2012-007748
Application 11/892,922

5
ANALYSIS
We begin by construing the key disputed limitation of claim 1 which
calls for, in pertinent part, “a characteristic signaling relating to a service.”
Appellant asserts that “the ITU-T standard is not the same as the
characteristic signaling . . . .” Br. 10. However, the Examiner explains that
this phrase has not been defined in the disclosure, “only referring to this
[characteristic signaling] as meaning v21, CM, etc.” Ans. 41; see also Spec.
¶ 36 (indicating the same). We additionally note that the disclosure refers to
“other service-related signaling” including “Fax, MODEM, etc., in addition
to V21, ANSam, etc.” Spec. ¶ 114. These are examples of characteristic
signaling relating to a service, but they are not an exhaustive list, given that,
as the Examiner notes, “etc.” in the disclosure contemplates other
service-related signaling to be included. Ans. 41. Thus, we agree with the
Examiner that the disclosure does not exclude an ITU-T standard signal
from being “characteristic signaling” as recited. See Ans. 42.
Next, we turn to Baumann. When addressing the disputed recitation,
“upon detection of the characteristic signaling relating to the service by
performing an inband signaling detection, reporting, by the calling media
gateway or the called media gateway, the characteristic signaling relating to
the service to the calling media gateway controller or the called media
gateway controller,” the Examiner states:
In a preferred embodiment of the present invention, provision is made
whereby, in the case of a fax transmission which is detected on one
side on the basis of a fax tone, this is signaled to the other side by way
of the media gateway controller. In this situation, the message
exchanged is the information indicating that the IP codec should be
switched over on both sides of the connection, thereby enabling a fax
transfer . . . .
Appeal 2012-007748
Application 11/892,922

6

Ans. 43 (citing Baumann ¶ 19) (emphasis added). Baumann thus teaches
detecting a fax tone (e.g., one type of characteristic signaling relating to a
service discussed above) on one side and then signaling another side to
switch a codec scheme.
This passage in Baumann does not specifically discuss a media
gateway or a media gateway controller. However, Baumann does state that
this situation is similar for a modem transmission. Baumann ¶ 19. The
Examiner thus parallels this teaching to Baumann’s Figure 2 and detecting a
modem tone. Ans. 43 (citing Baumann ¶ 48; Fig. 2). Specifically, Baumann
further shows step (1) “Modemtone detected” between media gateway (MG)
10 and media gateway controller (MGC) 6. Baumann, Fig. 2 (appearing
adjacent to upward arrow from MG10 on right). As discussed above, a
modem time is yet another characteristic signaling relating to a service in the
disclosure. Spec. ¶ 114. Thus, Baumann teaches and suggests, upon
detecting a transmission (e.g., fax or modem tone), a characteristic signaling
relating to a service (e.g., a fax or modem tone) is reported by a media
gateway to a media gateway controller.
Concerning the specific limitation that this detection occurs “by
performing an inband signaling detection” disputed by Appellant (Br. 9), the
Examiner further explains:
This determination is not done out of band and is reported to the
media gateway controller and therefore the reference at least states an
implicit inband signaling detection and then reporting to the media
gateway controller. In addition, looking at the corresponding figure 2,
the first thing the media gateway does is report a modemtone detected,
and a modemtone is an inband signaling, which again directly points
Appeal 2012-007748
Application 11/892,922

7
to the fact that the reference to Baumann fully discloses “performing
an inband signaling detection.”
Ans. 42. On the record, these findings remain undisputed.
Lastly, concerning the disputed step of “determining, by one of the
calling media gateway controller and the called media gateway controller, a
type of the service according to the characteristic signaling, and switching,
by the calling media gateway controller and the called media gateway
controller, the first codec scheme to a second codec scheme corresponding
to the type of the service,” Appellant refers back to the characteristic
signaling argument, for which we are not persuaded. Br. 10. Appellant also
asserts that Baumann’s media gateway controller does not use a
characteristic signaling to determine the codec but rather on the basis of an
ITU-T standard. Br. 10.
We are not persuaded. As stated above, an ITU-T signaling in
Baumann can be considered “a characteristic signaling related to a service”
given its broadest reasonable construction in light of the disclosure. See also
Ans. 6–7. Additionally, Baumann teaches and suggests that the media
gateway controller determines the type of service according to a
characteristic signaling (e.g., a fax or modem tone) and switches the codec
scheme corresponding to the service type. Baumann ¶¶ 19, 48; Fig. 2; see
also Ans. 43.
For the foregoing reasons, Appellant has not persuaded us of error in
the rejection of independent claim 1 and claims 2, 3, 7, 12, 20, 21, 28, and
29 not separately argued with particularity.

Appeal 2012-007748
Application 11/892,922

8
THE REMAINING REJECTIONS
For each of the remaining rejections, Appellant states that the
rejections are improper “for at least the reason that none of these references
teaches or suggests the above elements of claim . . . .” Br. 12. The issues
before us, then, are the same as those in connection with claim 1, and we
refer Appellant to our previous discussion. Accordingly, Appellant has not
persuaded us of error in the rejections of claims 4–6, 8–11, 15–19, and 24–
27.

CONCLUSION
The Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 1–12, 15–21, and 24–29
under § 103.

DECISION
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1–12, 15–21, and 24–29 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

ELD