Avaya Inc.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Dec 2, 2021

2020005820 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 2, 2021)

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.
15/239,935 08/18/2016 Joseph Smyth 415133-US-
NP/AVA204PA
7199
136582 7590 12/02/2021
STEVENS & SHOWALTER, LLP
Box AVAYA Inc.
7019 Corporate Way
Dayton, OH 45459-4238
EXAMINER
KEEHN, RICHARD G
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2456
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/02/2021 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
pto@sspatlaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte JOSEPH SMYTH, JOHN McGREEVY,
SEAN COYNE, and SIOBHAN DERVAN

Appeal 2020-005820
Application 15/239,935
Technology Center 2400

Before JAMES R. HUGHES, JOYCE CRAIG, and
MATTHEW J. McNEILL, Administrative Patent Judges.

CRAIG, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1–20, which are all of the claims
pending in the application. See Non-Final Act. 1. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.

1 We use the term “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.42 (2019). Appellant identifies Avaya Inc. as the real party in interest.
Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal 2020-005820
Application 15/239,935

2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims are directed to dynamically adapting conference attributes
depending on conference membership of terminals that may join or leave
during a conference. Spec. ¶¶ 2–3. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative
of the claimed subject matter:
1. A method of dynamically maintaining conference
attributes during a conference, comprising:
conducting, by a computer, the conference according to a
first set of conference attributes based on a first set of member
terminals currently members of the conference;
detecting during the conference, by the computer, that
conference membership changes from the first set of member
terminals to a second set of member terminals participating in the
conference;
determining, by the computer a second set of conference
attributes based on the second set of member terminals, wherein
the second set of attributes is selected to accommodate a least
capable member terminal in the second set of member terminals
of the conference; and
conducting, by the computer, the conference according to
the second set of conference attributes rather than the first set of
conference attributes.

Appeal Br. 13 (Claims App.).
Appeal 2020-005820
Application 15/239,935

3
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is:
Name Reference Date
Taylor et al. (“Taylor”) US 2012/0013705 A1 Jan. 19, 2012
Shetty US 2014/0250173 A1 Sept. 4, 2014
REJECTION
Claims 1–20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable
over Shetty and Taylor. Non-Final Act. 4–10.
ANALYSIS
Based on Appellant’s arguments, we select claim 1 as representative
of claims 1–20. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv).
Appellant contends that in Taylor “[t]he conference is not conducted
according to a second set of attributes,” as required by claim 1, because
the system of Taylor does not change the attributes of the
conference so as to accommodate the least-capable device but
instead sends different media individually to each device based
on their respective technical capability.
Appeal Br. 10.
In the Answer, the Examiner states that “Appellant appears to
interpret the claim to require [that] ALL of the terminals have to receive
only the media the least capable terminal can receive and use, but the claim
as written does not require this narrow of an interpretation.” Ans. 5. The
Examiner concluded that claim 1 encompasses “creating a base layer that
each terminal receives and can use,” even if there are “additional layers for
additional terminals with greater capabilities.” Id.
In the Reply Brief, Appellant does not specifically rebut the
Examiner’s claim interpretation. See generally, Reply Br. Rather, Appellant
Appeal 2020-005820
Application 15/239,935

4
argues that “Taylor discloses that the different video streams selected for and
transmitted to a conference member depends on the capabilities of that
particular member.” Id. at 4. In other words, Appellant argues that “Taylor
recognizes that the video conference may be conducted with some endpoints
receiving different video having mutually exclusive attributes.” Id.
Accordingly, Appellant argues that Taylor fails to teach “a second set of
conference attributes . . . selected to accommodate a least capable member
terminal,” as recited in claim 1. Id.
We are not persuaded that the Examiner erred. Appellant has not
persuaded us that the Examiner’s claim interpretation is overly broad,
unreasonable, or inconsistent with the Specification. Nor has Appellant
specifically explained why Taylor fails to teach or suggest the disputed
claim elements according to this interpretation. We agree with the Examiner
that claim 1 does not preclude terminals from receiving media layers in
addition to a base layer that the least capable terminal can use. Claim 1
recites “determining . . . a second set of conference attributes . . . selected to
accommodate a least capable member terminal in the second set of member
terminals of the conference” and “conducting . . . the conference according
to the second set of conference attributes.” Attributes may be, for example,
“connection types, data rates, etc.” Spec. ¶¶ 72, 76. Nothing in the language
of claim 1 restricts the “set of conference attributes” to only those attributes
compatible with the least capable terminal. The language of claim 1 is
broader than that, and merely requires that the set of attributes
“accommodate” the least capable terminal.
As the Examiner found, Taylor teaches the limitation of “a second set
of conference attributes . . . selected to accommodate a least capable member
Appeal 2020-005820
Application 15/239,935

5
terminal.” See, e.g., Non-Final Act. 5–6; Ans. 6–8. In particular, Taylor
describes modifying a media layering plan according to the capabilities of a
number of endpoints. Taylor ¶ 55. “The media layering includes the
capabilities of the endpoints in any combination of the areas of processing
power, memory, display size, frame rate, video quality, bandwidth,
macroblock rate and audio format.” Id. Importantly, “the base layer matches
the capabilities of the least capable endpoint in the conference.” Id. at 58.
Here, Taylor teaches a media layering plan for a conference comprised of a
number of attributes, such as “display size, frame rate, video quality, etc. (id.
at 55), that accommodates a least capable member of a conference. While
Taylor describes the layers as including “one or more enhancement layers
which incrementally increase the size, frame rate, and/or quality” (id. at 11),
in addition to the base layer, claim 1 does not preclude providing such
functionality beyond the capabilities of a least capable terminal, as discussed
above.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of
independent claim 1, as well as independent claim 11 and dependent claims
2–10 and 12–20 grouped therewith.
CONCLUSION
We affirm the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1–20.
Appeal 2020-005820
Application 15/239,935

6
DECISION SUMMARY
Claim(s)
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1–20 103 Shetty, Taylor 1–20
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). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(1)(iv).
AFFIRMED