Ex Parte Rodman

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardNov 23, 2012

11136138 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 23, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte JEFFREY RODMAN ____________ Appeal 2010-010518 Application 11/136,138 Technology Center 2600 ____________ Before THU A. DANG, JAMES R. HUGHES, and GREGORY J. GONSALVES, Administrative Patent Judges. GONSALVES, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2010-010518 Application 11/136,138 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the final rejection of claims 1-28 (App. Br. 5). We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. The Invention Exemplary Claim 1 follows: 1. A method for combining all control operations during a conference call, the method comprising: connecting a room function controller with a link to a conference endpoint; transmitting control data from the conference endpoint to the room function controller through the link, wherein the control data indicates a room function; sending a command from the room function controller to a room function device to perform the room function; and performing the room function by the room function device. Claims 1, 2, 5, 9-10, 21-22, and 25 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Rosselot (U.S. 2003/0103075) in view of Marsovich (WO 94/07327) (Ans. 3-5). Claims 3, 11, and 23 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Rosselot in view of Marsovich and Scherer (U.S. 6,961,637) (Ans. 5-6). Claims 4, 12, and 24 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Rosselot in view of Marsovich and Magnuson (U.S. 6,504,480) (Ans. 6). Appeal 2010-010518 Application 11/136,138 3 Claims 6-8, 13-14, 26-28 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Rosselot in view of Marsovich and Buckingham (U.S. 2004/0178889) (Ans. 7-8). Claims 15-16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Rosselot in view of Rigstad (U.S. 6,044,150) (Ans. 8-9). Claim 17 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Rosselot in view of Rigstad and Scherer (Ans. 9). Claim 18 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Rosselot in view of Rigstad and Magnuson (Ans. 10). Claims 19-20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Rosselot in view of Rigstad and Buckingham (Ans. 10- 11). FACTUAL FINDINGS We adopt the Examiner’s factual findings as set forth in the Answer (Ans. 3, et seq.). ISSUE Appellant’s responses to the Examiner’s positions present the following issue: Did the Examiner err in concluding that the combination of Rosselot and Marsovich teaches or would have suggested “connecting a room function controller with a link to a conference endpoint” and “sending a command from the room function controller to a room function device to perform the room function” (emphasis added), as recited in independent claim 1, and as similarly recited in independent claims 9 and 21? Appeal 2010-010518 Application 11/136,138 4 ANALYSIS Appellant contends that the Examiner erred in rejecting independent claim 1, 9, and 21 as obvious because the combination of Rosselot and Marsovich does not teach or suggest the claim limitation emphasized above (App. Br. 11-19). In support of this contention, Appellant argues that there is no indication that a controller “lies ‘in the devices,’ as purported by the Examiner” (id. at 13). Appellant further argues that the “Examiner has not established that a room function controller is inherent in devices 118, 126, and 128” (id. at 16). Appellant argues that “Rosselot teaches that a local computer 108 or a remote computer 104 actually control the room functions, and not the devices such as 118, 126, and 128 themselves” (id.). Appellant then argues that “without disclosing a room function controller, Rosselot and Marasovich cannot possibly disclose sending a command from the room function controller” (id. at 19). The Examiner found, however, that “remote control of one or more conference room devices [in Rosselot] may be provided by a remotely located computer 104 which communicates with conference room computer 108 via a computer network 106” (Ans. 13). The Examiner also found that the “conference devices will have their own controllers and transducers to carry out control commands issued from either local computer (108, fig. 1) or remote computer (104, fig. 1)” (id.). We agree with the Examiner’s findings. Rosselot discloses that “a plurality of conference room devices 102 . . . may be remotely controllable using a computer 104 connected via a network” (¶ [0025]). Rosselot further discloses that “remotely located computer 104 . . . communicates with Appeal 2010-010518 Application 11/136,138 5 conference room computer 108” (¶ [0026]) and “computer 108 is directly connected to various conference room devices 102 using a two-way protocol” (¶ [0025]). We broadly but reasonably construe Appellant’s recited “room function controller” to be a device capable of controlling room functions, i.e., by sending control information/data to room devices. Moreover, Rosselot also discloses that the conference room devices “may include cameras 110, VCR 112, DVD 114, cassette player/recorder 116, projector 118, CD player 120, one or more local computers 122, and various auxiliary equipment 124” (¶ [0026]). These conference room devices include their own controllers in order to interpret and execute the commands that they receive from the remote computer 104 and/or computer 108. For example, the local computers 122 disclosed in Rosselot, like any computer, have their own controllers. Accordingly, we find no error in the Examiner’s conclusion that Rosselot teaches a room function controller as well as connecting that controller with a link to a conference endpoint. Thus, we will sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of claim 1. We will also sustain the Examiner’s rejection of the other claims on appeal (i.e., claims 2-28) because Appellant did not set forth any separate and distinct patentability arguments for those claims (see App. Br. 19-21). DECISION We affirm the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-28 as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). 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). Appeal 2010-010518 Application 11/136,138 6 AFFIRMED pgc