Tzahi Efrati et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Aug 14, 2019

14581387 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Aug. 14, 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.
14/581,387 12/23/2014 Tzahi Efrati V216CIP 5105
72623 7590 08/14/2019
MOSER TABOADA / VONAGE HOLDINGS CORP.
1030 BROAD STREET
SUITE 203
SHREWSBURY, NJ 07702
EXAMINER
KADING, JOSHUA A
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2413
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/14/2019 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):
docketing@mtiplaw.com
llinardakis@mtiplaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte TZAHI EFRATI, JONATHAN ALEXANDER, SAGI DUDAI,
EUGENE PETER CANNON, and BRIAN GRADY LENO
____________________

Appeal 2018-008943
Application 14/581,3871
Technology Center 2400
____________________

Before ROBERT E. NAPPI, SCOTT E. BAIN, and
MICHAEL T. CYGAN, Administrative Patent Judges.

CYGAN, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF CASE
Introduction
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
Final Rejection of claims 1–17. App. Br. 1. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.

1 According to Appellants, Vonage Business, Inc. is the real party in interest.
App. Br. 3.
Appeal 2018-008943
Application 14/581,387

2
Disclosed Invention and Exemplary Claim
The disclosed invention relates to methods and a system for providing
automated conferencing in a communication session. Abstract. When
landline telephones were prevalent, additional household members could
join an existing call simply by picking up another phone on the same line.
Spec. ¶ 3. The disclosed technique seeks to provide such an ability to users
having mobile phones, each of which has its one separate line. Id. at 2. The
disclosed technique detects an established communication session between a
first end-user device and a second end-user device, such as between two
mobile phones or two devices using Voice over IP. Abstract; Spec. ¶¶ 3, 19.
The technique further comprises notifying a third end-user device associated
with the first user device that the established communication session is
available to be joined, and receiving a request from the third end-user device
to join the communication session. Abstract. The technique further
comprises establishing a conference session with the first end-user device,
the second-end user device, and the third end-user device. Id.
Independent claim 1 is exemplary of the disclosed invention, and
reads as follows:
1. A method for handling calls between associated
devices of a shared telephony account, comprising:
establishing a communication session between a first
end-user device and a second end-user device;
receiving a first notification message from the first end-
user device indicating that the communication session is at least
one of visible or joinable by one or more devices associated
with the first end-user device; and
sending a second notification message to the one or more
devices associated with the first end-user device.
.
Appeal 2018-008943
Application 14/581,387

3
Independent claims 10 and 16 recite limitations commensurate with
the limitations recited in claim 1. Dependent claims 2–9, 11–15, and 17
each incorporate the limitations of their respective independent claims.
Examiner’s Rejections
The Examiner rejects claims 1–8, 10–13, and 16–17 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(a)(2) as being obvious over Goepp et al. (US 2008/0303902 A1,
published Jan. 6, 2015, filed May 28, 2014, claiming the benefit of a
provisional application filed Oct. 11, 2013) (hereinafter, “Goepp”).
Appellants do not argue any claims in this grouping separately from claim 1;
accordingly, claims 1–8, 10–13, and 16–17 stand or fall together, and claim
1 is selected as representative. 37 C.F.R. § 41.67(vii).
The Examiner rejects claims 9 and 15 under §103 as being obvious
over the combination of Goepp and Bracken (US 2014/0270129, published
Sep. 18, 2014) (hereinafter “Bracken”).
The Examiner rejects claim 14 under §103 as being obvious over the
combination of Goepp and Cloran (US 2010/0061539, published Mar. 11,
2010) (hereinafter “Cloran”).

ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections (Final Act. 2–12), in
light of Appellants’ contentions that the Examiner has erred (App. Br. 5–13).
Further, we have reviewed the Examiner’s response to Appellants’
contentions (Ans. 3–4), and the Appellants’ Reply Brief.
Anticipation by Goepp
With respect to claim 1, the Examiner finds Goepp discloses each
element of the claim. The Examiner states:
Appeal 2018-008943
Application 14/581,387

4
With respect to claim 1, and to clarify the portions cited
in the rejections, it is clear from either Figure 4, step 410 or
Figure 6, step 608, and the corresponding description, that a
“communication session between a first end-user device and a
second-end user device” is established. As explained in at least
column 16, lines 34-44 of Goepp, there is at least a “second
notification” sent to the “one or more devices associated with
the first end-user device”, such as the device that initiated the
sub-conference or conference. This “notification” can include
presence information, status indicators, an audio message, etc.
Id. As further explained in Goepp, there may be other
“notifications,” such as “a first notification” that indicate the
visibility of the “session,” such as by playing sub-conference
video but disabling the audio. See Goepp, Col. 16, lines 23-33.
Ans. 11.
Appellants argue that Goepp does not disclose user devices that are
“associated with” the first end-user device. App. Br. 6. Appellants argue
that “associated” has been given a clear definition in the Specification,
requiring that the associated user devices are associated with a particular
telephony service account. App. Br. 7. Appellants contend that “Goepp
fails to detect devices associated with the account of the user of the first user
device [and that] Goepp further fails to notify third party devices associated
with the account of the first user device.” App. Br. 8.
We construe the disputed terms “in light of the specification as it
would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art.” In re Am. Acad. of
Sci. Tech. Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004). With respect to a
special definition of “associated,” Appellants cite to the Specification at
paragraph 43, and Figures 1, 2A, 2B, and 3. However, this section is
explicitly limited to “some embodiments” of the invention; i.e., the
embodiments of Figures 2A, 2B, and 3. Spec. ¶ 43 (“For example, in some
embodiments, the first user device 105 and the one or more third user
Appeal 2018-008943
Application 14/581,387

5
devices 1381-138n are associated with a shared telephony service account.”).
One having ordinary skill in the art would read this language as describing a
certain example of how user devices may be associated. Because the
description is set forth as merely an example of possible associations of
devices, the portion of the Specification referenced by Appellants is not
“sufficiently clear in the specification that any departure from common
usage would be so understood by a person of experience in the field of the
invention.” Multiform Desiccants Inc. v. Medzam Ltd., 133 F.3d 1473, 1477
(Fed. Cir. 1998).
Furthermore, the Specification discusses not the meaning of the word
“associated,” as argued by Appellants, but instead, discusses what the
devices are associated with. Claim 1 recites “one or more devices associated
with the first end-user device.” Appellants argue that each of these devices
are also associated with either a shared telephony account or have registered
their respective device information with the telephony provider. Appellants,
and their Specification, appear to be using the common and ordinary
meaning of “associated” in stating that the devices are “associated with a
shared telephony account.” Accordingly, one having ordinary skill in the art
would understand the phrase “user devices 1381-138n are associated with
each other” to also be using the common and ordinary meaning of
“associated.” Spec. ¶ 45. We do not agree that the claimed recitation of the
devices being with each other carries with it the further limitation of the
devices being registered with a common account. Accordingly, we are not
persuaded by Appellants’ argument.
Appellants next argue that the limitations of claim 1 must be
performed in a certain order. App. Br. 8. Appellants interpret the ordering
Appeal 2018-008943
Application 14/581,387

6
in the following manner: Based on the ordering of steps as directly
conveyed in Appellants' Specification, a communication session exists, and
then a notification is received defining the existing communication session
as joinable. Only then is a second notification sent to notify a third party
device (that is associated with the first device) of one or more ongoing
communication sessions. App. Br. 8. Appellants argue that, according to
this ordering, “the claim recites ‘a communication session,’ and then recites
‘the communication session.’” Reply Br. 4.
We do not find this argument persuasive because the Examiner’s
explanation of the rejection meets this ordering. The Examiner has
determined that Goepp discloses establishing a sub-conference (per Figure 6
step 608) that establishes a communication session between first and second
end-user devices. Ans. 11. The Examiner has also determined that the third
party device[s] are then notified that the sub-conference exists, for example,
by playing the sub-conference video with disabled audio. Id. Since playing
a sub-conference video with disabled auto would logically follow the
establishment of the subconference, the Examiner’s rejection follows the
same ordering as in the claim, and does not require an order different than
that proposed by Appellants. The Examiner’s explanation of Goepp’s
disclosure of a second notification, in the form of a status indicator
(indicating that the parties are in a sub-conference) or an audio message (that
certain users have entered a sub-conference), likewise does not appear to
conflict with Appellants’ asserted claim ordering. Ans. 11.
For the abovementioned reasons, we are not persuaded of error in the
Examiner’s rejection of claim 1. Since claims 1–8, 10–13, and 16–17 stand
Appeal 2018-008943
Application 14/581,387

7
or fall with claim 1, Appellants have not persuasively shown error in the
Examiner’s rejections of these claims.
Obviousness of claims 9 and 15
Although Appellants separately argue claim 9, Appellants’ argument
is, as for claim 1, that the Examiner is incorrectly interpreting the term
“associated with.” For the reasons set forth with respect to claim 1, supra,
we conclude that Appellants have not persuasively shown error in the
Examiner’s rejection of claim 9.
With respect to claim 15, Appellants argue that the combination of
Goepp and Bracken, although teaching a conference system that allows for
sub-conferencing between participants and enables automatic speech
recognition for users, does not teach monitoring a communication session
and notifying a third end-user device when one or more keywords are
spoken. App. Br. 11.
The Examiner finds Bracken to teach a voice platform 114 in a
network that can use automatic speech recognition to execute conference
calls or other notifications such as a text note or message, private chat or
instant message window, etc. Ans. 12–13, citing Bracken ¶¶ 45, 61, Fig. 2.
We are not persuaded by Appellants’ argument. Bracken describes
“at any time during a conference call, the user may . . . request to send a text
note or message to others in the conference call.” Bracken ¶ 61. Bracken
further describes that the voice platform may provide user devices with
interactive voice response services and automatic speech recognition.
Accordingly, we determine that the Examiner’s determination that the
combination of Goepp and Bracken teaches or suggests monitoring a
communication session (e.g., via interactive voice response services and
Appeal 2018-008943
Application 14/581,387

8
automatic speech recognition) for keywords that would initiate notifications
(e.g., conference calls, text notes, text messages, private chats, or instant
message windows) is supported by the teachings and suggestions of
Bracken.
Obviousness of claim 14
With respect to claim 14, Appellants argue that a determination of
which devices associated with the first end-user device should be notified of
an ongoing call (as recited in claim 10) has not been shown by the
combination of Goepp and Cloran to be based on which third end-user
devices have participated in previous calls with the second end-user device.
App. Br. 13.
The Examiner determines that Cloran teaches a conference call
management system that relies on a call history, which is leveraged to
“enables the user to schedule a new conference call with the same . . .
participants . . . as a previous one.” Ans. 13–14 (citing Cloran ¶¶ 23, 35,
40).
We are not persuaded by Appellants’ argument. Appellants have not
contended that the Examiner erred in determining that Goepp describes the
limitation of claim 10; i.e., that Goepp teaches a determination of which
devices associated with the first end-user device should be notified of an
ongoing call. Further, the Examiner has presented a reasoned explanation of
how the teachings or suggestions of Cloran would be combined to teach or
suggest the additional limitation of claim 14, i.e., to base the determination
on which third end-user devices have participated in previous calls with the
second end-user. Ans. 13–14. We determine that the Examiner’s
explanation is supported by the cited portions of the applied combination of
Appeal 2018-008943
Application 14/581,387

9
references. Appellants have not provided any persuasive reasoning as to
why the Examiner’s conclusion is in error. Accordingly, we conclude that
the Examiner’s determination that the combination of Goepp and Bracken
teaches or suggests monitoring a communication session (e.g., via
interactive voice response services and automatic speech recognition) for
keywords that would initiate notifications (e.g., conference calls, text notes,
text messages, private chats, or instant message windows) is supported by
the teachings and suggestions of Bracken.

DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s rejections of claims 1–8, 10–13, and 16–17
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(2).
We affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claims 9, 14, and 15 under
35 U.S.C. § 103.
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