Polycom, Inc.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Mar 9, 2022

2021001307 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 9, 2022)

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. 15/642,508 07/06/2017 Avihay Barazany 199-0930USC 9194 11422 7590 03/09/2022 Keith Lutsch PC - Poly 801 Travis Street, Suite 1610 Houston, TX 77002 EXAMINER ELL, MATTHEW ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2171 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 03/09/2022 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): eofficeaction@appcoll.com patents@keithlutschpc.com polyip@dennemeyer.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte AVIHAY BARAZANY and EYAL LEVIAV ____________ Appeal 2021-001307 Application 15/642,508 Technology Center 2100 ____________ Before KARL D. EASTHOM, NORMAN H. BEAMER, and SCOTT B. HOWARD, 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 1-24. 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 (2019). Appellant identifies Plantronics, Inc., as the real party in interest. (Appeal Br. 3.) Appeal 2021-001307 Application 15/642,508 2 THE INVENTION Appellant’s disclosed and claimed invention generally “relates to video communication and more particularly to the field of presenting content in videoconferencing.” (Spec. ¶ 2.) The claimed invention is directed to “handling content in videoconferencing” by “handl[ing] the content by its original application.” (Id. ¶ 21.) Independent claims 1 and 12, reproduced below, are illustrative of the subject matter on appeal: 1. A videoconferencing content displaying endpoint for cooperating with a videoconference content presenting endpoint, the videoconference content displaying endpoint comprising: a display unit; a network interface adapted to connect directly to the videoconferencing content presenting endpoint; a content receiving module, configured to receive presented content directly from the videoconferencing content presenting endpoint in its original file format and associated information regarding activity of a presenting conferee on the presented content; and a presentation reader module configured to display on the display unit similar presented content and the activity of the presenting conferee on the presented content as the activity is displayed on a display unit associated with the videoconferencing content presenting endpoint. (Appeal Br. 17 (Claims App.).) 12. A videoconferencing content presenting endpoint for cooperating with a videoconference content displaying endpoint, the videoconference content presenting endpoint comprising: a network interface adapted to connect directly to the videoconferencing content displaying endpoint; Appeal 2021-001307 Application 15/642,508 3 a content transmitting client agent, configured to: obtain a selected file of presented content in its original format; cause the selected file of presented content to be displayed on a display unit associated with the videoconferencing content presenting endpoint; and collect associated information regarding activity of a presenting conferee on the presented content; and a content transmitting module configured to transmit directly to the videoconferencing content displaying endpoint the file of presented content in its original file format and the associated information. (Appeal Br. 19 (Claims App.).) REJECTIONS The Examiner rejected claims 1-15 and 17-24 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Srinivasan et al. (US 2011/0231518 A1, pub. Sept. 22, 2011) and Yasoshima (US 2012/0274728 A1, pub. Nov. 1, 2012). (Final Act. 3-10.) The Examiner rejected claim 16 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Srinivasan, Yasoshima, and Mertama et al. (US 2006/0079214 A1, pub. Apr. 13, 2006). (Final Act. 10-11.) ISSUES ON APPEAL Appellant’s arguments present the following dispositive issue2: Whether the Examiner erred in finding the combination of Srinivasan and Yasoshima would have taught or suggested the “content receiving 2 Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellant and the positions of the Examiner, we refer to the Appeal Brief (filed July 28, 2020) (Appeal Br.); the Reply Brief (filed Dec. 14, 2020) (Reply Br.); the Final Office Action Appeal 2021-001307 Application 15/642,508 4 module, configured to receive” limitation of claim 1 (“a content receiving module, configured to receive presented content directly from the videoconferencing content presenting endpoint in its original file format”), the commensurate “content transmitting module configured to transmit” limitation of independent claim 12 (“content transmitting module configured to transmit directly to the videoconferencing content displaying endpoint the file of the presented content in its original file format”), and the commensurate limitations of independent claims 7, 18, 23, and 24. (Appeal Br. 17-21.) ANALYSIS For the claim limitations at issue, the Examiner relies on Srinivasan’s presentation host having “direct communication with the remote systems” when the communication is compatible, to teach that content is transmitted “directly from the videoconferencing content presenting endpoint” to the videoconferencing content displaying endpoint. (Final Act. 4; Srinivasan ¶¶ 25, 28, Fig. 1.) The Examiner also relies on Yasoshima’s video conferencing apparatus that “are connected to one another through a network 2 and operate directly with each other” to teach the claimed direct connection between the videoconferencing content presenting endpoint and the “videoconferencing content displaying endpoint.” (Final Act. 4; Yasoshima ¶¶ 25, 28; see also Ans. 6.) The Examiner relies on Srinivasan’s presentation server receiving “a copy of the presentation from the presentation host, including both the presentation in its native format” to (mailed Jan. 24, 2020) (Final Act.); and the Examiner’s Answer (mailed Oct. 26, 2020) (Ans.) for the respective details. Appeal 2021-001307 Application 15/642,508 5 teach the claimed transmission of the content “in its original file format.” (Final Act. 5; citing Srinivasan ¶¶ 22, 25.) Appellant argues that, in Srinivasan, there “is never any direct communication between the presentation host 12 and the remote system 16a.” (Appeal Br. 13.) Specifically, Appellant argues that “all discussions in Srinivasan have the presentation host 12 uploading everything to the presentation server 14 for access by the remote systems 16a-b,” but that there is “no discussion in Srinivasan of a presentation host 12 ever directly providing a copy to a remote system 16a or a remote system 16a ever getting a copy directly from a presentation host 12.” (Id. at 12-13.) We are not persuaded that the Examiner’s findings are incorrect. The Examiner cites, for example, Figure 1 of Srinivasan, set forth below. (Final Act. 4.) Appeal 2021-001307 Application 15/642,508 6 Figure 1 shows a collaborative environment “in which a presentation can be shared and viewed at a number of different computing systems remote from each other.” (Srinivasan ¶ 19.) The environment of Figure 1 shows that the “collaborative environment 10 includes a presentation host 12, a presentation server 14, and a plurality of remote computing systems (illustrated as remote systems 16a- b) interconnected by network 18.” (Srinivasan ¶ 19.) The “presentation host 12 generally is a computing device or system from which a user will direct operation of a presentation via collaboration software.” (Id. ¶ 20.) The “remote system 16a represents a remote system capable of loading and viewing a presentation using a collaboration software application program compatible with that provided at the presentation host,” such that the “remote system 16a could load a version of the presentation in its native format . . . within the collaboration software.” (Id. ¶ 25.) As supported by Figure 1 and the cited sections of Srinivasan, we agree with the Examiner’s finding that “[i]t is clear . . . that the presentation host has direct communication with the remote systems and will communicate with the server only when the remote systems lack the collaboration software.” (Final Act. 4.) Appellant does not explain how Srinivasan’s presentation host 12 does not communicate directly with remote systems, without using the presentation server 14, when the remote systems are compatible (i.e., when the remote systems have compatible collaboration software). Accordingly, Appellant does not explain why the claimed transmitting content directly is not taught or otherwise suggested by Srinivasan’s direct communication between the presentation host and remote systems when the remote systems and the presentation host are compatible. Appeal 2021-001307 Application 15/642,508 7 Yasoshima discloses that “the conference system 1 includes a video conference apparatus 3 installed in a site A, a video conference apparatus 4 installed in a site B, and the video conference apparatus 5 installed in a site C,” and that the “video conference apparatuses 3 to 5 are connected to one another through a network 2.” (Yasoshima ¶ 25.) In Yasoshima, “the video conference apparatus 5 includes a CPU 21” that is “electrically connected to a . . . communication unit 31,” which “performs communication with the other video conference apparatuses 3 and 4 through the network 2.” (Id. ¶¶ 27-28.) Appellant does not address the reliance on Yasoshima’s direct connection between the apparatuses over the network, combined with Srinivasan’s direct communication between the presentation host and the remote systems with compatible collaboration software, to teach “connect[ing] directly,” “receiv[ing] presented content directly,” and “transmit[ting] directly” as claimed. Appellant also argues that Yasoshima does not teach transmitting content “in its original file format” as claimed because Yasoshima’s content “is only shared as images.” (Appeal Br. 14.) Specifically, Appellant argues that Yasoshima does not share the files themselves and instead only shares “the images of the content file when operated on by the relevant content application,” which “does not teach a conference endpoint receiving content in its original file format from any device in the conference.” (Id.) In the Answer, the Examiner responds that Srinivasan, not Yasoshima, teaches that “an original version of the presentation can be downloaded for editing purposes.” (Ans. 8; Srinivasan ¶¶ 57, 66.) Appeal 2021-001307 Application 15/642,508 8 Appellant does not reply to the Examiner’s response in the Examiner’s Answer, and we are not persuaded that the Examiner’s findings are incorrect. Appellant’s arguments are unpersuasive as focusing on references individually, whereas the Examiner relies on the combination of references. Non-obviousness cannot be established by attacking references individually where, as here, the ground of unpatentability is based upon the teachings of a combination of references. In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Rather, the test for obviousness is whether the combination of references, taken as a whole, would have suggested the patentee’s invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art. In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981). As cited by the Examiner, Srinivasan discloses that “an upload operation 428 uploads a native version of the presentation (e.g., in PPT or PPTX format).” (Srinivasan ¶ 66.) Appellant does not explain why Srinivasan’s communicating the “native version of the presentation,” such as in a “PPT or PPTX format,” does not teach receiving and transmitting content “in its original file format” as claimed. The Examiner also finds that it would be obvious “to modify Srinivasan’s method for delivering a presentation to include Yasoshima’s teaching of directly connecting a video conference apparatus with multiple computing systems because it speeds and facilitates transmission of content.” (Final Act. 4-5.) Appellant argues that “one skilled in the art would not combine the references to produce the present claims without the use of hindsight obtained by reviewing the present claims.” (Appeal Br. 15.) Specifically, Appeal 2021-001307 Application 15/642,508 9 Appellant argues that Yasoshima’s “low rate video of the laptop display” supporting that “the content image is transferred and then displayed” would not be “combined with the original file transfer via a server as done in Srinivasan.” (Reply Br. 2-3.) Appellant argues that “Srinivasan needs a server to handle the more complex operations” and “Yasoshima can do go direct [sic] with the simple content image transfers,” and that these “two sets of items . . . have very different signaling requirements” and are “not known substitutable elements.” (Id. at 3.) We are not persuaded that the Examiner’s findings are incorrect. As discussed above, the test for obviousness is whether the combination of references, taken as a whole, would have suggested the patentee’s invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art. In re Keller, 642 F.2d at 425. As further discussed above, Srinivasan’s presentation host 12 communicates directly with remote systems, without using the presentation server 14, when the remote systems are compatible (i.e., when the remote systems have compatible collaboration software), which teaches or otherwise suggests direct connection between the endpoint devices as claimed. (Final Act. 4; Srinivasan ¶¶ 19, 25, Fig. 1.) Appellant has not explained why it would not be obvious to modify Srinivasan’s collaborative environment facilitating the presentation host communicating content directly with compatible remote systems with Yasoshima’s conference environment facilitating communicating content directly between endpoints to further facilitate transmission of content as proffered by the Examiner. Therefore, we sustain the obviousness rejections of independent claims 1, 7, 12, 18, 23, and 24 over Srinivasan and Yasoshima. We also sustain the obviousness rejections of claims 2-6, 8-11, 13-15, 17, and 19- Appeal 2021-001307 Application 15/642,508 10 22 over Srinivasan and Yasoshima, and of claim 16 over Srinivasan, Yasoshima, and Mertama, which rejections are not argued separately with particularity. DECISION SUMMARY In summary: Claim(s) Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 1-15, 17-24 103 Srinivasan, Yasoshima 1-15, 17-24 16 103 Srinivasan, Yasoshima, Mertama 16 Overall Outcome 1-24 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). See 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv). AFFIRMED