Ex Parte Richardson et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Nov 29, 2012

10498739 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 29, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
_____________

Ex parte JOHN RICHARDSON, JENS CAHNBLEY,
and KUMAR RAMASWAMY
_____________

Appeal 2010-005294
Application 10/498,739
Technology Center 2100
______________

Before, ROBERT E. NAPPI, DAVID M. KOHUT, and
JASON V. MORGAN, Administrative Patent Judges.

KOHUT, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2010-005294
Application 10/498,739

2
This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the Final
Rejection of claims 1-5, 7-9, 12-20, 22-24, and 26-38.1 We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm the Examiner’s rejection of these claims.

INVENTION
The invention is directed to a method and system for initiating and
joining a videoconference session and multicast session over a network by
indicating a pre-selected time and clients and by sending an invitation to one
of the clients at the selected time. Spec. 2-4. Claim 1 is representative of
the invention and is reproduced below:
1. A method for automatically initiating a videoconference
session over a network, comprising the steps of:
receiving a pre-selection that specifies a time and clients
for the videoconference session;
sending an invitation message regarding the
videoconference session to at least one of the clients at the
specified time, the invitation message specifying a common
multicast IP address of a pre-recorded source of content for the
videoconference session; and
providing an ability, to an intended client unable to
participate in the videoconference session, to record the pre-
recorded source of content for subsequent playback at a non-
contemporaneous time.

1 Claims 6, 10, 11, 21, and 25 were previously cancelled.
Appeal 2010-005294
Application 10/498,739

3
REFERENCES
Wieland Holfelder, Interactive Remote Recording and Playback of
Multicast Videoconferences, 4th Int’l Workshop on Interactive Distributed
Multimedia Systems and Telecommunication Services (IDMS ’97), Lecture
Notes in Computer Science, vol. 1309, pp. 450-463 (Sept. 9, 1997).2

Zhang US 6,016,478 Jan. 18, 2000

Miller US 6,453,438 B1 Sep. 17, 2002

Henrikson US 2003/0053612 A1 Mar. 20, 2003

Li US 6,751,747 B2 June 15, 2004
(filed Dec. 14, 2000)

Summers US 6,961,416 B1 Nov. 1, 2005
(filed Feb. 29, 2000)

REJECTIONS AT ISSUE
Claims 9, 14, 15, 24, 26, 29, 30, 34, and 35 are rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Miller and
Holfelder.3 Ans. 3-6 and 13-15.
Claims 1-3, 12, 13, 16-18, 27, 28, and 38 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Miller, Summers,
and Holfelder.4 Ans. 6-10.

2 Hereinafter referred to as Holfelder.
3 The Examiner inadvertently left out claims 26, 34, and 35 from the
statement of the rejection but included them in the body of the rejection. We
have included the claims in the statement of the rejection here.
4 We have corrected the Examiner’s statement of rejection to reflect the
actual rejection of the claims found in the body of the rejection.
Appeal 2010-005294
Application 10/498,739

4
Claims 31-33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over the combination of Miller, Holfelder, and Zhang. Ans.
10-13.
Claims 7, 8, 22, 23, and 36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over the combination of Miller, Holfelder, Zhang, and
Summers. Ans. 15-16.
Claims 4, 5, 19, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over the combination of Miller, Summers, Holfelder, and
Henrikson. Ans. 16-18.
Claims 13, 28, and 37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over the combination of Miller, Holfelder, and Li. Ans. 18.

ISSUES
Did the Examiner err in finding that the combination of Miller and
Holfelder teaches or suggests an intended client who is unable to participate
in a session?
Did the Examiner err in finding that the combination of Miller and
Holfelder teaches or suggests inviting a client to a session?

ANALYSIS
Claims 9, 14, 15, 24, 29, and 30
Appellants select independent claims 9 and 24 as representative of the
group comprising claims 9, 14, and 15 and 24, 29, and 30 (respectively).
App. Br. 19. Claims 9 and 24 both require an invite to be sent to at least one
client regarding a multicast session and providing the ability of that intended
client to participate in the multicast session. Appellants argue in both the
Appeal 2010-005294
Application 10/498,739

5
Appeal Brief, on pages 19-22, and the Reply Brief, on pages 11-16, that
neither Miller nor Holfelder discloses these limitations. We disagree.
First, Appellants argue that neither reference teaches “an intended
client unable to participate in the [] session.” App. Br. 20; Reply Br.14.
The Examiner initially finds that Holfelder, in Section 3.4, teaches remote
recording of a session which would allow a client to playback the session at
another time. Ans. 4-5. Appellants respond by arguing that Holfelder’s
disclosure of remote recording by a client includes “a person interested in
this topic” and/or “a person [who] would like to record a session, but he or
she lacks direct access to the MBone.” App. Br. 20; Reply Br. 14. As such,
Appellants argue that neither of these people is an intended client, as
required by the claim, since both of these people could have been
intentionally excluded from the session. App. Br. 20; Reply Br. 12 and 14.
While Holfelder does not explicitly state that either of the people are
“intended clients,” we agree with the Examiner that Holfelder contemplates
that they are intended clients, as further evidenced by the Examiner’s finding
that Holfelder, in Section 3.2, teaches a user unable to participate in a
conference because he/she lives in a different time zone or could not be in
the office when the conference was taking place. Ans. 21. Appellants have
not addressed the Examiner’s specific finding relating to Section 3.2 of
Holfelder. Thus, we agree with the Examiner.
Second, Appellants argue that neither reference teaches “an invitation
message regarding the [] session” because a Product Announcement
Message is not the same as an invitation. App. Br. 21; Reply Br. 15. In
support of Appellants’ argument, Appellants contend that an announcement
is declaring something publicly while an invitation is asking someone to
Appeal 2010-005294
Application 10/498,739

6
come do something. App. Br. 22; Reply Br. 15. However, Appellants fail to
consider the reference as a whole and there is nothing in Appellants’
Specification or in the references that precludes an “announcement” from
also being an invitation. Additionally, the Examiner finds that Miller
announces that a product transmission is about to be sent. Ans. 23. This
announcement message is only sent to receivers who are authorized to
receive the product transmission. Ans. 22. Additionally, the Examiner finds
that prior to receiving the product transmission, the receivers have to register
and by registering they are informing the sender that they wish to participate
in the product transmission. Ans. 23. Thus, the announcement message is a
public invitation to a group of selected individuals to receive the product
transmission and by registering the individuals are accepting the invitation.
As a result, in the particular situation described by the Examiner’s
interpretation of Miller (Ans. 22-23), the announcement message is also an
invitation.
For the reasons stated supra, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of
claims 9, 14, 15, 24, 29, and 30.

Claims 1-5, 7, 8, 12, 13, 16-20, 22, 23, 26-28, and 31-38
Appellants make the same arguments with respect to claims 1-5, 7, 8,
12, 13, 16-20, 22, 23, 26-28, and 31-38 as with one of claims 9 and 24. App.
Br. 22-49; Reply Br. 16-42. Therefore, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection
of claims 1-5, 7, 8, 12, 13, 16-20, 22, 23, 26-28, and 31-38 for the same
reasons as indicated supra with respect to claims 9 and 24.

Appeal 2010-005294
Application 10/498,739

7
CONCLUSION
The Examiner did not err in finding that the combination of Miller and
Holfelder teaches or suggests an intended client who is unable to participate
in a session.
The Examiner did not err in finding that the combination of Miller and
Holfelder teaches or suggests inviting a client to a session.

SUMMARY
The Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1-5, 7-9, 12-20, 22-24, and
26-38 is affirmed.
AFFIRMED

msc