Ex Parte Chang et al

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jan 23, 2019

11751445 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Jan. 23, 2019)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
11/751,445 05/21/2007
83417 7590 01/23/2019
AT&T Legal Department - HFZ
ATTN. Patent Docketing
One AT&T Way
Room 2A-207
Bedminster, NJ 07921
UNITED ST A TES OF AMERICA
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Hisao Chang
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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
20103/2006-1475 2001
EXAMINER
PHUNG,LUAT
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2468
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
01/23/2019 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte HISAO CHANG, MARK HUBSCHER, and
CARL TON LI GAR BROWN
Appeal 2018-003169
Application 11/751,445 1
Technology Center 2400
Before JASON V. MORGAN, MICHAEL J. STRAUSS, and
CARLL. SILVERMAN, Administrative Patent Judges.
SILVERMAN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's final
rejection of claims 6-8, 10-20, and 37--43, which constitute all pending
claims. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants' invention relates to methods and apparatus for
communicating through a multi-fidelity gateway. Abstract; Spec ,r,r 17-20;
Figs. 1, 2. Claim 6 is exemplary of the matter on appeal ( emphasis added):
1 The real party in interest is AT&T Intellectual Property I, L.P. App. Br. 2.
Appeal2018-003169
Application 11/751,445
6. A method comprising:
receiving a communication at a multi-fidelity audio gateway of
a media system located in a residence from a device associated with
the residence;
determining whether the communication is a speech command;
when the communication is the speech command, selecting, via
a processor, a high fidelity communication path within the multi-
fidelity audio gateway for the communication;
when the communication is not the speech command:
identifying, via the processor, audio fidelity information
associated with the device; and
selecting, via the processor, a communication path within
the multi-fidelity audio gateway for the communication based
on the audio fidelity information associated with the device.
App. Br. 19 (Appendix A).
THE REJECTI0N2
Claims 6-8, 10-20, and 37--43 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a)
as being unpatentable over Slotznick (US 2001/0055951 Al; pub. Dec. 27,
2001) ("Slotznick") in view ofForslow (US 2003/0039237 Al; pub. Feb.
27, 2003) ("Forslow"). Final Act. 3-8.
2 This Appeal is closely related to Appeal 2012-008857 (Application 11/7
51,445) in which the Board's Decision affirmed the rejection of all claims.
We refer to the prior Board Decision as "Decision" or "Dec."
We note Appellants' Appeal Brief does not identify the Appeal 2012-
008857 in its statement of Related Appeals and Interferences. App. Br. 3.
We direct Appellants to 37 C.F.R. § 4I.37(c)(ii) (2016), which states that
Related Appeals should be identified in the Appeal Brief.
2
Appeal2018-003169
Application 11/751,445
ANALYSIS
Appellants argue the Examiner errs in finding Forslow teaches the
claim 6 limitations:
identifying, via the processor, audio fidelity information
associated with the device; and
selecting, via the processor, a communication path within the
multi-fidelity audio gateway for the communication based on the
audio fidelity information associated with the device.
App. Br. 10-13; Reply Br. 2-5. (emphasis added).
According to Appellants, Forslow does not teach "identifying, via the
processor, audio fidelity information associated with the device" because the
Forslow teaches optimizing associated applications; not devices. App. Br.
10 (citing Forslow ,r 54). According to Appellants:
The cited portions of Forslow describe that the choice between
a circuit switched and a packet-switched bearer is made based on ~
requested quality of service for a specific application flow. An
application flow is defined in ,r [0015] of Forslow as "An application
flow corresponds to a stream of data packets distinguishable as being
associated with a particular host application. An example application
flow is an electronic mail message from the mobile host to a fixed
terminal. Another example application flow is a downloaded graphics
file from a web site" ( emphasis added). In other words, the requested
quality of service is based on the application requesting the
communication, not the audio fidelity information associated with the
device, as set forth in claim 1. In fact, there is no indication that
Forslow identifies the audio fidelity information associated with the
calling device. As such, Forslow does not teach or suggest identifying,
via the processor, audio fidelity information associated with the device.
Id. at 11 ( emphasis in original).
3
Appeal2018-003169
Application 11/751,445
Appellants argue Forslow does not teach "selecting ... a
communication path ... for the communication based on the audio fidelity
information associated with the device" because, although Forslow selects
between circuit switching or packet-switching based on quality of service,
the quality of service is not based on the audio fidelity information
associated with the device ( calling device) from which the communication is
received. Id. at 11-13. According to Appellants, the quality of service is
based on the type of communication ( e.g., voice communication, video
communication, the sending of data) and is not based on the audio fidelity
information associated with the calling device. Id. at 12. Appellants refer to
Forslow:
Forslow sets forth "A circuit-switched bearer is better suited to
carrying real time services like voice and video that require low delay
and/or small jitter. Traditional Internet data applications such as
WWW, file transfer, e-mail, and telnet are better served by packet-
switched bearers which are better suited to fast channel access and
bursty data transfer" (see ,r [0052] of Forslow). In other words, the
quality of service required for a voice call from a cell phone would be
different in Forslow than an email sent from the same cell phone.
Thus, the voice call from the cell phone would use a circuit-switched
bearer and an email sent from the same cell phone would use a
packet-switched bearer. As such, the communication path in Forslow
is not selected based on the audio fidelity information associated with
the device.
Id. ( citing Forslow ,r 52). ( emphasis in original).
The Examiner finds that F orslow teaches the limitation "identifying
... " by identifying quality of service. Final Act. 4. ( citing Forslow ,r 54).
The Examiner finds F orslow teaches "selecting ... based on the audio
fidelity information associated with the device" by selecting, based on
4
Appeal2018-003169
Application 11/751,445
quality of service, circuit-switched or packet switched bearer. Id.
According to the Examiner, in Forslow, applications running on a mobile
station may specify a requested quality of service, and with this information,
select the type of bearer to be employed when transferring the application
flow through the network. Ans. 3--4 (citing Forslow ,r 27). The Examiner
finds Forslow identifies various application flows: an audio application flow,
a video application flow, and a conferencing application flow. Id. at 4
( citing Forslow ,r 66). The Examiner finds quality of service includes peak
bit rate and per packet delay, based on which a circuit-switched or a packet-
switched bearer is selected to carry the specific application flow. Id. (citing
Forslow ,r 54). The Examiner explains, "[t]hus the quality of service
required by the applications, e.g., audio, video, conferencing, running on the
mobile station constitutes the fidelity information associated with the
device." Id.
The Examiner notes that Appellants' argument relying on audio
information associated with the "calling device" is unpersuasive because
"calling device" is not cited in the claim. Id. ( citing App. Br. 12).
Regarding "selecting ... a communication path ... for the
communication based on the audio fidelity information associated with the
device," the Examiner finds Forslow describes that a circuit-switched bearer
is better suited to carrying real time services like voice and video that require
low delay and/or small jitter. Id. at 4--5 (citing App. Br.12; Forslow ,r 52).
The Examiner then finds "[i]n Forslow, applications running on the mobile
station, i.e., device, require certain quality of service, i.e., fidelity
5
Appeal2018-003169
Application 11/751,445
information, based on which a bearer is selected for that application, i.e.,
selecting a communication path." Id. at 5.
Appellants reply to the Examiner's response with arguments similar to
those presented in the Appeal Brief. Reply Br. 2-5.
Regarding the Examiner's statement that "calling device" is not
recited in claim 6 (Final Act. 4), we note that the claim recites "receiving a
communication ... from a device," "identifying ... associated with the
device," and "selecting ... based on ... the device." Therefore, it is not
unreasonable for Appellants to refer to the device as a "calling device" (App.
Br. 11) in making their argument as it is understood to refer to the device
associated with the residence as claimed.
We are not persuaded of Examiner error by Appellants' argument that
Forslow does not teach "identifying, via the processor, audio fidelity
information associated with the device" communication" because Appellants
have not shown that the Examiner's interpretation of "associated" is
unreasonably broad or inconsistent with the Specification. That is, we agree
with the Examiner that Forslow's quality of service required by the
applications run on the mobile station constitutes fidelity information
associated with the device. A claim in a patent application is given the
broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the Specification, as
understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. In re Crish, 393 F.3d 1253,
1256 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Great care should be taken to avoid reading
limitations of the Specification into the claims. E-Pass Techs., Inc. v. 3Com
Corp., 343 F.3d 1364, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2003).
6
Appeal2018-003169
Application 11/751,445
For similar reasons, we are not persuaded by Appellants' argument
that F orslow does not teach "selecting ... a communication path ... for the
communication based on the audio fidelity information associated with the
device" because Forslow teaches quality of service is not based on the audio
fidelity information associated with the device ( calling device) from which
the communication is received and instead is based on the type of
communication ( e.g. voice communication, video communication, the
sending of data.). As discussed supra, as broadly but reasonably interpreted,
Forslow teaches identifying audio fidelity information associated with the
device, and the selection of a communication path is based on the fidelity
information associated with the device.
Additionally, we are not persuaded by Appellants' argument,
discussed supra, that the quality of service required for a voice call made
from a cell phone would be different in F orslow than an email sent from the
same cell phone wherein the voice call from the cell phone would use a
circuit-switched bearer and an email sent from the same cell phone would
use a packet-switched bearer. Appellants' conclusion that the
communication path in Forslow is not selected based on the audio fidelity
information associated with the device is not commensurate with the scope
of the limitation which does not require that the communication path be
selected based solely on the device.
In view of the above, we sustain the rejection of claim 6, and, for the
same reasons, independent claim 12 in which Appellants argue Forslow does
not teach "selecting a ... communication path ... based on the audio
fidelity information associated with the device," and independent claims 37
7
Appeal2018-003169
Application 11/751,445
and 40 which additionally recite "identifying audio fidelity information
associated with the device." We also sustain the rejection of dependent
claims 7, 8, 10, 11, 13-17, 19, 20, 38, 39, and 41--43 as these claims are not
argued separately. See 37 C.F.R. § 4I.37(c)(l)(iv) (2016).
Appellants argue the Examiner errs in finding the combination of
Slotznick and Forslow teaches dependent claim 18 (which depends
indirectly from independent claim 12) which recites "wherein the service
module is to be received by the media system while the media system is
operating." App. Br. 14--15. Appellants argue the Examiner's reference to
Figure 5 and paragraph 128 of Slotznick is mistaken because paragraph 128
describes Figure 3. Id. at 15. According to Appellants, the Examiner's
citation of Slotznick does not mention a service module and does not
mention any device being installed while the Slotznick system is in
operation. Id. (citing Slotznick, Fig. 5, TV phone 321, ,r 128).
The Examiner responds that paragraph 128 of Slotznick describes the
components of Figure 3, which is the basis for Figure 5, and both Figures 3
and 5 are relied upon in the rejection. Ans. 6. The Examiner finds, as in the
rejection of independent claim 6, the Slotznick TV phone 321 constitutes the
use of the speech recognition module to translate spoken words into data
commands, corresponding to processing when the communication is the
speech command. Id. (citing Slotznick ,r 132; see Final Act. 3). The
Examiner finds Slotznick, Figures 3 and 5, depict communications among
the components/modules of TV phone 321, thus disclosing the service
module (speech recognition module) being received by the media system
while the media system is operating. Id. The Examiner additionally notes
8
Appeal2018-003169
Application 11/751,445
that Appellants' argument that relies on a device being installed while the
system is in operation is not recited in dependent claim 18. Id.
Appellants reply, arguing that Slotznick teaches that the TV phone
incorporates a speech recognition module 3 51 as an input device in addition
to a keypad and "[i]ncorporating a speech recognition module does not teach
or suggest receiving the speech recognition module while the TV phone is
operating." Reply Br. 5-7 (citing Slotznick, Figs. 3, 5; ,r 132). According to
Appellants, Slotznick teaches communication paths among different
modules incorporated in a TV phone and this does not teach or suggest
receiving modules into the TV phone during operation of the phone. Id. at 6.
Appellants argue Slotznick does not mention the speech recognition module
351 being received while the system of Slotznick is in operation. Id.
We are not persuaded by Appellants' arguments and agree, instead,
with the Examiner's findings. In particular, Slotznick's speech recognition
module constitutes the service module and one of ordinary skill in the art
would understand that the module would be in operation while the media
system is working so as to enable the module to perform its function of
speech recognition while the media system is operating. Therefore, we
sustain the rejection of claim 18.
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 6-8, 10-20, and
37--43.
9
Appeal2018-003169
Application 11/751,445
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)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED
10