Avaya Inc.

Patent Trials and Appeals BoardJul 16, 2020

2019002273 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 16, 2020)

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. 14/691,253 04/20/2015 Mehmet C. Balasaygun 4366-722 9654 48500 7590 07/16/2020 SHERIDAN ROSS P.C. 1560 BROADWAY, SUITE 1200 DENVER, CO 80202 EXAMINER SPRINGER, JAMES E ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2454 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 07/16/2020 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): cjacquet@sheridanross.com edocket@sheridanross.com pair_Avaya@firsttofile.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte MEHMET C. BALASAYGUN, GORDON R. BRUNSON, JOEL M. EZELL, ERIC D. COOPER, and RIFAAT SHEKH-YUSEF Appeal 2019-002273 Application 14/691,253 Technology Center 2400 Before ST. JOHN COURTENAY III, LINZY T. McCARTNEY, and CARL L. SILVERMAN, Administrative Patent Judges. McCARTNEY, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellant1 seeks review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the Examiner’s final rejection of claims 1, 2, 4–12, and 14–19. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We reverse. 1 Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Avaya Inc. Appeal Brief 2, filed September 11, 2018 (Appeal Br.). Appeal 2019-002273 Application 14/691,253 2 BACKGROUND This patent application concerns the “handling of early media in communication devices.” Specification ¶ 1, filed April 20, 2015. Claim 1 illustrates the claimed subject matter: 1. A method comprising: sending a Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) INVITE message to establish a call; in response to sending the SIP INVITE message, receiving first and second SIP provisional response messages; receiving a first media stream associated with one of the first or the second SIP provisional response messages; playing the first media stream; receiving a second media stream associated with the other one of the first or the second SIP provisional response messages; determining that the first and second media streams are received within a first time period; and in response to receiving the second media stream, discarding the first media stream in favor of playing the second media stream. Appeal Br. 16. Appeal 2019-002273 Application 14/691,253 3 REJECTIONS Claims 35 U.S.C. § References 1, 4, 7–9 103 Ginde,2 Mumick3 2, 5, 11, 12, 14, 15, 17, 18 103 Ginde, Mumick, Kannan 4 6, 16 103 Ginde, Mumick, Kannan, Okumura5 10, 19 103 Ginde, Mumick, Garcia6 DISCUSSION Claim 1 recites “determining that the first and second media streams are received within a first time period” (the determining limitation). Appeal Br. 16. For this limitation, the Examiner found that Ginde teaches the recited first and second media streams and that Mumick teaches a “predefined time period” during which an “early media notification is played.” Final Action 3–4, mailed June 13, 2018 (Final Act.). The Examiner reasoned that because claim 1 does “not recite performing any function responsive to this” limitation, “applying a generic time limit (such as that disclosed by Mumick) to . . . Ginde meets the disputed limitation.” Examiner’s Answer 4, mailed December 27, 2018 (Ans.). Appellant argues that the Examiner has not shown that the combination of Ginde and Mumick teaches or suggests the determining limitation. See Appeal Br. 8–9; Reply Brief 6–7, filed January 23, 2019. 2 Ginde (US 2013/0246632 A1; September 19, 2013). 3 Mumick et al. (US 2016/0156782 A1; June 2, 2016). 4 Kannan et al. (US 2009/0110171 A1; April 30, 2009). 5 Okumura et al., Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) Usage of the Offer/Answer Model, Internet Eng’g Task Force, Request for Comments: 6337 (August 2011). 6 Garcia et al. (US 2006/0250988 A1; November 9, 2006). Appeal 2019-002273 Application 14/691,253 4 Appellant contends Mumick’s “predefined time period” is “clearly different from the first time period in claim 1” and thus the combination of Ginde and Mumick does not teach or suggest the determining limitation. Appeal Br. 8. Appellant has persuaded us that the Examiner erred. Even if claim 1 does “not recite performing any function responsive to” the determining limitation, the Examiner was not free to ignore aspects of this limitation when determining whether the limitation would have been obvious. The determining limitation requires determining that first and second media streams “are received within a first time period” Appeal Br. 16 (emphasis added). The cited parts of Mumick disclose “transmit[ting] an early media notification . . . for a predefined time period.” Mumick ¶ 17. The Examiner did not adequately explain why transmitting data for a “predefined time period” teaches or suggests determining whether the recited media streams are received during that period, nor did the Examiner otherwise sufficiently account for this limitation. On this record, we thus do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1 and its dependent claims under § 103. Because the Examiner’s rejection of independent claim 11 under § 103 suffers from a similar flaw, we also do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of independent claim 11 and its dependent claims under § 103. Appeal 2019-002273 Application 14/691,253 5 CONCLUSION The following table summarizes our decision for claims 1, 2, 4–12, and 14–19, the claims before us on appeal: Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § References/Basis Affirmed Reversed 1, 4, 7–9 103 Ginde, Mumick 1, 4, 7–9 2, 5, 11, 12, 14, 15, 17, 18 103 Ginde, Mumick, Kannan 2, 5, 11, 12, 14, 15, 17, 18 6, 16 103 Ginde, Mumick, Kannan, Okumura 6, 16 10, 19 103 Ginde, Mumick, Garcia 10, 19 Overall Outcome 1, 2, 4–12, 14–19 REVERSED