Mehmet Balasaygun et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Oct 31, 2019

14154412 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Oct. 31, 2019)

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.
14/154,412 01/14/2014 Mehmet Balasaygun 648.0196 4458
93379 7590 10/31/2019
Setter Roche LLP
14694 Orchard Parkway
Building A, Suite 200
Westminster, CO 80023
EXAMINER
HLAING, SOE MIN
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2451
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
10/31/2019 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):
pair_avaya@firsttofile.com
sarah@setterroche.com
uspto@setterroche.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte MEHMET BALASAYGUN, SANDY ABRAMSON,
and TIBOR LUKAC
____________

Appeal 2019-000081
Application 14/154,412
Technology Center 2400
____________

Before ELENI MANTIS MERCADER, NORMAN H. BEAMER,
and GARTH D. BAER, Administrative Patent Judges.

BEAMER, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
final rejection of claims 1–12. We have jurisdiction over the pending
rejected claims under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.

1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in
37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Avaya Inc.
(Appeal Br. 2.)
Appeal 2019-000081
Application 14/154,412

2
THE INVENTION
Appellant’s disclosed and claimed invention is directed to creation of
a SIP (Session Initiation Protocol) session between a controlling endpoint
and a controlled endpoint. (Abstract.)
Independent claims 1, 6, and 7, reproduced below, are illustrative of
the subject matter on appeal:
1. A method for establishing a session initiation protocol
shared control channel between a first endpoint associated with
a user and a plurality of second endpoints associated with the
user, said method comprising:
providing a label and shared control support information
corresponding to each of said plurality of second endpoints in a
Contact header of a REGISTER message to a session initiation
protocol registrar, wherein the shared control support
information indicates whether the corresponding endpoint of
the plurality of second endpoints supports a SIP based shared
control mechanism for controlling said corresponding endpoint
by said first endpoint;
saving each of said labels and shared control support
information in association with a registered contact address of
said second endpoint;
via said first endpoint, reading each of said labels and
shared control support information from a registration event
NOTIFY message; and
creating a shared control session and presenting said
labels of said plurality of second endpoints to said user enabling
said user to select one of said plurality of endpoints for the first
endpoint to control over the shared control session.

6. A method for establishing a session initiation protocol
shared control channel between a first endpoint associated with
a user and a plurality of second endpoints associated with the
user, said method comprising:
sending a shared control INVITE request with a Request-
URI set to an address of record of a user, said shared control
INVITE request comprising an indication of a desired SIP
Appeal 2019-000081
Application 14/154,412

3
based shared control protocol for said first endpoint to control
one of said plurality of second endpoints over a shared control
session;
by a proxy server, receiving said shared control INVITE
request;
by said proxy server, determining a list of registered
contacts associated with said address of record;
by said proxy server, selecting from said list one or more
of said contacts that support indicated SIP based shared control
shared control protocol; and
by said proxy server, forking said shared control INVITE
request to said selected contacts.

7. A method for establishing a session initiation protocol
(SIP) shared control channel between a controlling application
running on a device associated with a user and an endpoint, said
endpoint comprising one of a plurality of controllable devices
associated with the user, said method comprising:
at said controlling application, receiving a session
initiation protocol registration event notification from a
registrar as a result of a registration event subscription done by
at least one of the plurality of controllable devices;
at said controlling application, detecting which of one or
more registered controllable devices are compatible for a shared
control session, wherein a controllable device is compatible if
the controllable device supports a SIP based shared control
mechanism for controlling said controllable device by said
controlling application;
sending a separate INVITE request for each controllable
device that is deemed compatible; and
at said endpoint, enabling control by the user.

REJECTIONS
The Examiner rejected claims 1–4 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Ramsayer et al. (US 6,985,961 B1, iss. Jan. 10, 2006)
(hereinafter “Ramsayer”) and Rosenberg et al, “Indicating User Agent
Appeal 2019-000081
Application 14/154,412

4
Capabilities in the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP),” RFC 3840 (August,
2004) (hereinafter “Rosenberg”), and Acharya et al. (US 2006/0026288 A1,
pub. Feb. 2, 2006) (hereinafter “Acharya”). (Final Act. 6.)
The Examiner rejected claim 5 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Ramsayer, Rosenberg, Acharya, and Allen et al. (US
2009/0190577 A1, pub. July 30, 2009) (hereinafter “Allen”). (Final
Act. 13.)
The Examiner rejected claim 6 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Ramsayer, Smith et al. (US 2012/0233327 A1, pub. Sept.
13, 2012) (hereinafter “Smith”), and Lee et al. (US 2013/0097265 A1, pub.
Apr. 18, 2013) (hereinafter “Lee”). (Final Act. 14.)
The Examiner rejected claims 7 and 9 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Ramsayer, Rao et al. (US 7,467,210 B1, iss. Dec. 16,
2008) (hereinafter “Rao”), and Lee. (Final Act. 18.)
The Examiner rejected claim 8 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Ramsayer, Rao, Lee, and Acharya. (Final Act. 23.)
The Examiner rejected claims 10 and 11 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over Acharya and Allen. (Final Act. 24.)
The Examiner rejected claim 12 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Acharya, Allen, Smith, and Rosenberg et al., “SIP:
Session Initiation Protocol,” RFC 3261 (June, 2002) (hereinafter “Rosenberg
2”). (Final Act. 27.)

Appeal 2019-000081
Application 14/154,412

5
ISSUES ON APPEAL
Appellant’s arguments in the Appeal Brief present the following
issues:2
Issue One: Whether the Examiner erred in finding the combination of
Ramsayer, Rosenberg, and Acharya teaches or suggests
creating a shared control session and presenting said labels
of said plurality of second endpoints to said user enabling
said user to select one of said plurality of endpoints for the
first endpoint to control over the shared control session,

as recited in independent claim 1, and the commensurate limitation recited in
independent claim 10. (Appeal Br. 7–8, 11; see also Reply Br. 2–3.)
Issue Two: Whether the Examiner erred in finding the combination of
Ramsayer, Smith, and Lee teaches or suggests
sending a shared control INVITE request with a Request-URI
set to an address of record of a user, said shared control
INVITE request comprising an indication of a desired SIP
based shared control protocol for said first endpoint to control
one of said plurality of second endpoints over a shared control
session,

as recited in independent claim 6. (Appeal Br. 8–9; see also Reply Br. 3.)
Issue Three: Whether the Examiner erred in finding the combination
of Ramsayer, Rao, and Lee teaches or suggests “wherein a controllable
device is compatible if the controllable device supports a SIP based shared

2 Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellant and the positions of the
Examiner, we refer to the Appeal Brief (filed Apr. 2, 2018, hereinafter
“Appeal Br.”); the Reply Brief (filed Oct. 1, 2018, hereinafter “Reply Br.”);
the Final Office Action (mailed Nov. 2, 2017, hereinafter “Final Act.”); and
the Examiner’s Answer (mailed July 30, 2018, hereinafter “Ans.”) for the
respective details.
Appeal 2019-000081
Application 14/154,412

6
control mechanism for controlling said controllable device by said
controlling application,” as recited in independent claim 7. (Appeal Br. 9–
10; see also Reply Br. 4.)
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellant’s
arguments that the Examiner errs. We disagree with Appellant’s arguments,
and we adopt as our own: (1) the pertinent findings and reasons set forth by
the Examiner in the Action from which this appeal is taken (Final Act. 2–
29); and (2) the corresponding reasons set forth by the Examiner in the
Examiner’s Answer in response to Appellant’s Appeal Brief. (Ans. 2–8.)
We concur with the applicable conclusions reached by the Examiner and
emphasize the following.
First Issue
In finding that the combination of Ramsayer, Rosenberg, and Acharya
teaches or suggests the independent claim 1 limitation at issue, the Examiner
relies on Acharya’s disclosure of a portable control device using SIP to
control a media exchange session, in which the portable device maintains
control of the media exchange session so that modifications can be made to
the session. (Final Act. 2–3, 10–11; Ans. 3–4; see also Acharya Abstract,
Fig. 1, ¶¶ 27, 66, 5, 62–63, 67, 79.)
Appellant argues that
Acharya never discloses that the portable device 30
controls the office phone in any way to initiate the call
between the office phone and the other user or to transfer the
call from the office phone. Instead, Acharya generically
teaches that portable device 30 initiates the call between the
office phone and the other user and “facilitates” the transfer of
the call between endpoints (see Acharya, ¶ 0066). Acharya
Appeal 2019-000081
Application 14/154,412

7
never asserts that any endpoint controls another endpoint to
perform any of the recited actions.
(Reply Br. 2.)
We are not persuaded by Appellant’s arguments. The Examiner finds,
and we agree, that Acharya teaches
the portable device 30 [i.e. first end point] can initially establish
a voice call between the initiating user’s office phone [i.e.
second endpoint] and the phone of another user [i.e. using the
portable device 30, user may control his/her [office] phone to
initiate a voice call with another user]
(Ans. 3, citing Acharya ¶ 66), and that
[d]uring the voice call, if the initiating user needs to travel to an
appointment outside of the office, the initiating user’s office
phone [i.e. second endpoint] connection is transferred to the
initiating user’s cellular phone [i.e. another second endpoint], in
order for the call to avoid termination [i.e. using the portable
device 30, the user now (i) controls the office phone to stop the
existing call (ii) selects the cellular phone to continue the
existing call, and (iii) controls the cellular phone to resume the
existing call].
(Ans. 3–4, citing Acharya ¶ 66.)
The Examiner broadly and reasonably construes the “shared control
session” of independent claim 1 to cover Acharya’s use of a portable device
to transfer a connection so as to avoid termination. While the disclosure
asserts that
[t]hose skilled in the art will understand the application of SIP
shared control session establishment in embodiments of this
invention. Further, those skilled in the art will understand how
a SIP shared control session is established . . . .
Appeal 2019-000081
Application 14/154,412

8
(Spec. ¶ 10), Appellant points to nothing in the disclosure that explains or
defines what constitutes a “shared control session.” Appellant’s arguments
are not commensurate with the scope of the claim.
Accordingly, we affirm the Examiner’s rejection of independent claim
1, and dependent claims 2–5 not argued separately, as well as independent
claim 10 and dependent claims 11 and 12 not argued separately with
particularity. (See Appeal Br. 7–8, 11.)
Second Issue
In finding that the combination of Ramsayer, Smith, and Lee teaches
or suggests the independent claim 6 limitation at issue, the Examiner relies
on Ramsayer’s disclosure of a composite user agent acting on behalf of a
group of member agents, in which the composite agent invites a preferred
member agent having a video device necessary to be added to a session.
(Final Act. 14–15; Ans. 5–6; see also Ramsayer Abstract, Figs. 1, 3, 5;
1:55–64, 2:8–16, 5:18–47, 7:61–66, 8:15–20, 5:1–8, 7:10–20, 11:57–61,
5:1–8, 8:35–67, 12:60–13:20.)
Appellant argues that in Ramsayer,
[m]essages exchanged in accordance with the SIP
protocol to ensure media exchanged between two devices is
exchanged in accordance with the capabilities of the two
devices do not provide one device with control over the other.
While it would be beneficial for the devices to use media
capabilities supported by both devices, the devices are under no
obligation to do so.
(Reply Br. 3, emphasis in original.)
We are not persuaded by Appellant’s arguments. The Examiner finds,
and we agree, that in Ramsayer, “[an] SIP session is shared among the
participating devices thus it is a shared control session,” and that
Appeal 2019-000081
Application 14/154,412

9
in order to add video to the session, the composite user agent
20A may send [an] INVITE message to the member user agent
18B’ associated with the video device 36 [i.e. second endpoint].
Accordingly, the member user agent 18B’ [i.e. second
endpoint] will be allowed to join the session. In other words,
the composite user agent 20A [i.e. first endpoint] specifically
selects and controls the member user agent 18B’ associated
with the video device 36 [i.e. second endpoint] to join the
session based on the video capability associated with the video
device 36 [i.e. second endpoint].
(Ans. 6, citing Ramsayer Fig. 5, 12:60–13:20.) The Examiner broadly and
reasonably construes the “shared control session” of independent claim 6 to
cover Ramsayer’s ability to allow a member user agent associated with a
video device to join a session. Appellant’s arguments are not commensurate
with the scope of the claim.
Accordingly, we affirm the Examiner’s rejection of independent
claim 6.
Third Issue
In finding that the combination of Ramsayer, Rao, and Lee teaches or
suggests the independent claim 7 limitation at issue, the Examiner relies on
Lee’s disclosure of a Converted IP Messaging (“CPM”) service using an SIP
based session that allows for an implementation of an instant messaging
service, permitting messaging from a first user (“User A”) client, first
passing through User A’s home network, then passing through a second
user’s (“User B”) home network, and finally to User B’s client. (Final Act.
21–22; Ans. 6–7; see also Lee Fig. 3; ¶¶ 5, 42–86, 97.)
Appellant argues that
a server in Lee merely determines that a terminal is compatible
with Converted IP Messaging (CPM), and the server sends that
terminal a request to join the session . . . . The terminal being
Appeal 2019-000081
Application 14/154,412

10
CPM compatible is not the same as supporting a SIP based
shared control mechanism. Also, the terminal is not controlled
by the server to reply to the request but, instead, must reply to
the request on its own accord.
(Reply Br. 4.)
We are not persuaded by Appellant’s arguments. The Examiner finds,
and we agree, that in Lee
[b]ased on the acquired information [e.g. whether CPM has
been set enabled and/or the version is supported], [t]he CPM PF
server-B [i.e. controlling application] determines whether or not
any of the registered terminals [i.e. controllable device] is
appropriate for receiving the request. Then, based on the
determination, the CPM PF server-B 810B [i.e. controlling
application] may forward the request to the appropriate
registered terminal [i.e. controllable device] in order to permit
the registered terminal to further participate in messaging
session [i.e. registered terminal’s participation in messaging
session is controlled by the CPM PF server-B 810B based on
the registered terminal’s compatibility with the session].
(Ans. 7, citing Lee Fig. 3, ¶¶ 78, 80, 82–86, 97.) The Examiner broadly and
reasonably construes the “shared control session” of independent claim 7 to
cover Lee’s ability to allow a registered terminal to participate in a
messaging session. Appellant’s argument is not commensurate with the
scope of the claim.
Accordingly, we affirm the Examiner’s rejection of independent claim
7, and dependent claims 8 and 9 not argued separately with particularity.
(See Appeal Br. 9–11.)

Appeal 2019-000081
Application 14/154,412

11
CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated above, we affirm the obviousness rejections of
claims 1–12.
DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35
U.S.C. §
Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1–4 103 Ramsayer, Rosenberg,
Acharya
1–4
5 103 Ramsayer, Rosenberg,
Acharya, Allen
5
6 103 Ramsayer, Smith, Lee 6
7, 9 103 Ramsayer, Rao, Lee 7, 9
8 103 Ramsayer, Rao, Lee, Acharya 8
10, 11 103 Acharya, Allen 10, 11
12 103 Acharya, Allen, Smith,
Rosenberg 2
12
Overall
Outcome
1–12

TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE
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