Yoakum, John H.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jan 28, 2020

13955711 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Jan. 28, 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.
13/955,711 07/31/2013 John H. Yoakum 4366-939 9242
48500 7590 01/28/2020
SHERIDAN ROSS P.C.
1560 BROADWAY, SUITE 1200
DENVER, CO 80202
EXAMINER
CHRISTENSEN, SCOTT B
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2444
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
01/28/2020 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 JOHN H. YOAKUM
Appeal 2019-001141
Application 13/955,711
Technology Center 2400
Before IRVIN E. BRANCH, AMBER L. HAGY, and SCOTT RAEVSKY,
Administrative Patent Judges.
HAGY, 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 to reject claims 1, 3–9, 11–15, and 17–20, which are all
of the pending claims. See Final Act. 1. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.

1 We use the word Appellant to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.42. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as applicant, Avaya,
Inc. Brief 2.
Appeal 2019-001141
Application 13/955,711

2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
According to Appellant, the technology of the present application
“relates generally to Web Real-Time Communications (WebRTC)
interactive sessions.” Spec. ¶ 1. By way of “Technical Background,”
Appellant describes WebRTC as providing “built-in capabilities for
establishing real-time video, audio, and/or data streams in both point-to-
point interactive sessions and multi-party interactive sessions.” Id. ¶ 3. To
establish a WebRTC interactive flow (e.g., a real-time video, audio, and/or
data exchange), “two WebRTC clients may retrieve WebRTC-enabled web
applications, such as HTML5/JavaScript web applications, from a web
application server. Through the web applications, the two WebRTC clients
then engage in a media negotiation to communicate and reach an agreement
on parameters that define characteristics of the interactive session.” Id. ¶ 4.
Appellant’s Specification further describes typical WebRTC functionality,
while noting a drawback:
Typically, a WebRTC client provides capability for modifying
various aspects of the WebRTC client functionality at a local
endpoint. For example, to facilitate a WebRTC interactive
media flow, the WebRTC client may allow modification of
attributes of local communicatively coupled devices such as
speakers, microphones, video cameras, and video displays, as
non-limiting examples. However, WebRTC does not include a
mechanism for a first WebRTC client to effect changes to the
functionality associated with a remote WebRTC client engaged
in a media exchange with the first WebRTC client.
Id. ¶ 6. Appellant’s Specification purports to address the described
drawback in the prior art by describing embodiments that “provide remotely
controlling Web Real-Time Communications (WebRTC) client functionality
via WebRTC data channels.” Id. ¶ 7.
Appeal 2019-001141
Application 13/955,711

3
Claims 1, 9, and 15 are independent. Claim 1, reproduced below,
illustrates the claimed subject matter:
1. A method for remotely controlling Web Real-Time
Communications (WebRTC) client functionality, comprising:
establishing, by a first WebRTC client executing on a
first computing device and a second WebRTC client executing
on a second computing device, a WebRTC media channel
between the first WebRTC client and the second WebRTC
client, wherein the second computing device and the second
WebRTC client are located remotely from the first computing
device and the first WebRTC client;
establishing, between the first WebRTC client and the
second WebRTC client, a WebRTC data channel affiliated with
the WebRTC media channel, wherein establishing the WebRTC
data channel comprises:
establishing by a WebRTC Client Control Agent
of the first WebRTC client and executing on the first
computing device the WebRTC data channel with a
WebRTC Functionality Modification Agent of the
second WebRTC client and executing on the second
computing device, and
sending, by the WebRTC Functionality
Modification Agent, a client control authorization signal
back to the WebRTC Client Control Agent allowing
control of functionality of the second WebRTC client by
the first WebRTC client;
receiving, by the second WebRTC client from the first
WebRTC client via the WebRTC data channel, a client control
signal comprising instructions originating from the WebRTC
Client Control Agent of the first WebRTC client, the
instructions comprising instructions to modify a functionality
associated with the second WebRTC client; and
responsive to receiving the client control signal via the
WebRTC data channel, modifying the functionality associated
with the second WebRTC client according to the instructions,
wherein modifying the functionality associated with the second
Appeal 2019-001141
Application 13/955,711

4
WebRTC client comprises modifying by the WebRTC
Functionality Modification Agent of the second WebRTC client
an attribute associated with a device communicatively coupled
to the second computing device based on the client control
signal.
REFERENCES
Baum et al. (“Baum”), US. Patent Application No. US 2009/0070477 A1,
published Mar. 12, 2009.
R. Jessup, S. Loreto, M. Tuexen, “WebRTC Data Channel Protocol,”
RTCWeb Working Group (Feb. 26, 2013) (“Jessup”).
Applicant Admitted Prior Art (“AAPA”) (Spec. ¶¶ 2–6; Final Act. 3).

REJECTION2
Claims 1, 3–9, 11–15, and 17–20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as being unpatentable over the combination of AAPA, Baum, and Jessup.
Final Act. 3–10.
OPINION
We have considered Appellant’s arguments and contentions (Brief 7–
11) in light of the Examiner’s findings and explanations (Final Act. 2–10;
Ans. 3–8). For the reasons set forth below, we are not persuaded of
Examiner error in the rejection of the pending claims, and we, therefore,
sustain the Examiner’s rejection.

2 The Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (“AIA”) included revisions to
35 U.S.C. § 103 that became effective on March 16, 2013. Because the
present application was filed after March 16, 2013, the rejection is under the
provisions of Title 35 of the United States Code in effect after the effective
date of the AIA.
Appeal 2019-001141
Application 13/955,711

5
Claims 1, 3–9, 11–15, 17–20 are all rejected under the same ground of
rejection. Final Act. 3. Appellant argues the patentability of all claims
together with independent claims 1, 9, and 15, which Appellant argues
collectively. See Brief 8, 9. We select claim 1 as the representative claim,
pursuant to our authority under 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv). Claims 3–9,
11–15, 17–20 stand or fall with claim 1.
The Examiner relies on the combination of AAPA, Baum, and Jesup
as teaching or suggesting the limitations of claim 1. In particular, the
Examiner finds AAPA (identified by the Examiner as paragraphs 2–6 of
Appellant’s Specification)3 discloses a method for remotely controlling a
WebRTC client functionality, including “establishing . . . a WebRTC media
channel” between first and second clients, and “modifying a functionality
associated with the second WebRTC client . . . .” Final Act. 3–4 (citing
Spec. ¶¶ 4, 6). The Examiner relies on Baum in combination with Jesup for
the remaining limitations, finding Baum discloses “[a] control and a data
channel may be established, where the control channel may be used to
control remote devices, such as sensors and cameras that provide streams via
the data channel,” and Jesup discloses a “WebRTC data channel protocol
provides a generic transport service to exchange generic data, thus providing
that a WebRTC data channel would be fully capable of transporting the kind
of information in Baum.” Id. at 4 (citing Baum ¶¶ 129, 209; Jesup at 3,
Section 1). In mapping the other limitations of claim 1 onto Baum’s
disclosure as modified by Jesup, the Examiner finds Baum discloses all of
the recited functionality except Baum does not specifically teach use of

3 This finding by the Examiner is not challenged by Appellant. See Brief 8.
Appeal 2019-001141
Application 13/955,711

6
WebRTC, but the Examiner finds Jesup discloses WebRTC’s “generic
transport capabilities” (Final Act. 3). The Examiner further finds the
ordinarily skilled artisan would have been motivated to incorporate the
generic transport mechanism of WebRTC, as taught by Jesup, into the
disclosure of Baum “to allow the local control of AAPA to be performed
remotely using a control channel within the known WebRTC session.”
Ans. 6.
Appellant argues the Examiner’s findings are in error, essentially
arguing that AAPA does not provide a WebRTC control channel for the
remote control of a functionality (Brief 8), Baum does not provide for the
use of WebRTC (id. at 8–10), and Jesup does not provide for the remote
control of a functionality (id. at 10). As the Examiner points out, however,
Appellant is attacking each reference singly for lacking a teaching that the
Examiner relied on a combination of references to show. See Ans. 4–7. The
test for obviousness is not whether the claimed invention is expressly
suggested in any one or all of the references. “Rather, the test is what the
combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of
ordinary skill in the art.” In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981)
(citations omitted) (emphasis added). Thus, where, as here, the rejections
are based upon the teachings of a combination of references, “[n]on-
obviousness cannot be established by attacking references individually.” In
re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986) (citing Keller, 642
F.2d at 425). In addition, a reference “must be read, not in isolation, but for
what it fairly teaches in combination with the prior art as a whole.” Id. In
arguing findings the Examiner never made with regard to the individual
teachings of the prior art, Appellant has not demonstrated Examiner error.
Appeal 2019-001141
Application 13/955,711

7
Appellant also argues that “the conclusions reached by the Examiner
are based on the benefit of hindsight gained from the claims recitations and
the facts relied upon by the Examiner in making this argument seem to come
from the claim recitations rather than the references themselves.” Brief 11.
We disagree that the Examiner has engaged in improper hindsight
reconstruction or has erred in combining the teachings of the cited
references. As noted above, the Examiner’s findings are premised on
disclosures gleaned from the prior art, such as AAPA’s teaching of
WebRTC and local control, Baum’s disclosure of using data and control
channels to remotely modify a functionality of a device of Baum, and
Jesup’s disclosure of WebRTC’s generic transport mechanism. See Ans. 4–
8.
Where, as here, the Examiner has articulated a reason having rational
underpinnings for making a proposed combination of prior art teachings, that
articulated reasoning demonstrates the combination is not based on
hindsight. See In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (requiring
“some articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the
legal conclusion of obviousness”) (cited with approval in KSR Int’l Co. v.
Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 419 (2007)). A reason to combine teachings
from the prior art “may be found in explicit or implicit teachings within the
references themselves, from the ordinary knowledge of those skilled in the
art, or from the nature of the problem to be solved.” WMS Gaming Inc. v.
Int’l Game Tech., 184 F.3d 1339, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (citing In re Rouffet,
149 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 1998)).
We determine the Examiner has provided an articulated reason for
combining AAPA, Baum, and Jesup that includes a rational underpinning.
Appeal 2019-001141
Application 13/955,711

8
See Final Act. 6; Ans. 5. In particular, as the Examiner clarifies in the
Answer, Appellant’s Specification discloses that the peer connection
between WebRTC clients “typically employs the Secure Real-Time
Transport Protocol (SRTP) to transport real-time media channels, and may
utilize various other protocols for real-time data interchange.” Ans. 5 (citing
Spec. ¶ 5). The Examiner finds this demonstrates “that other protocols can
actually be used within WebRTC, such as SRTP, which is an extension of
RTP.” Id. The Examiner also finds “Baum utilizes Real-time Transport
Protocol . . . , which demonstrates an additional suggestion to utilize the
different protocols (such as RTP) of Baum with WebRTC.” Id. (citing
Baum ¶ 209). The Examiner also notes that Jesup discloses “that it was
known to utilize WebRTC as a generic transport mechanism, thus
demonstrating that one of ordinary skill in the art would have been fully
capable of utilizing the WebRTC data channel to convey different
information items, including that taught by Baum for the control channel.”
Id. at 6. Thus, the Examiner finds the ordinarily skilled artisan would have
been motivated
to provide a control channel for the WebRTC session to allow
remote control of devices that provide streams, especially in
cases where the remote client may not be associated with a
remote user, such as remote sensors or cameras, where
providing such controls to the local client would give the
capability to control the remote client which would otherwise
not be possible (due to the lack of a corresponding remote
user).
Final Act. 6. The Examiner also finds “by specifically using the WebRTC
data channel’s generic transport capabilities, the combination would not
need to implement separate channels and protocols in order to provide such
connections, thus simplifying execution of the system.” Id.
Appeal 2019-001141
Application 13/955,711

9
The Examiner has thus supported the finding of obviousness with
articulated reasoning that includes a rational underpinning. Appellant, on
the other hand, has not provided persuasive evidence or line of reasoning
explaining why the Examiner’s rationale is erroneous or why a person of
ordinary skill in the art would not have reached the conclusions reached by
the Examiner. At most, Appellant raises a semantic challenge to the
Examiner’s findings based on their use of language about what the
references “may” or “would be able to do.” See Brief 11. Such an argument
is unpersuasive of Examiner error. As the Examiner notes, the Examiner’s
findings are based on capabilities of the systems disclosed in the prior art.
See Ans. 7–8. An obviousness inquiry hinges in part on “whether the
ordinary artisan possesses knowledge and skills rendering him capable of
combining the prior art references.” See DyStar Textilfarben GmbH & Co.
Deutschland KG v. C.H. Patrick Co., 464 F.3d 1356, 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2006).
The Examiner’s describing the capabilities of the prior art supports reasons
why the ordinarily skilled artisan would have been motivated to combine,
and would have been capable of combining, their teachings, and thus the
Examiner’s choice of language does not betray reasoning based on
hindsight.
For the foregoing reasons, we are not persuaded of Examiner error in
the rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over the
combination of AAPA, Baum, and Jesup, and we, therefore, sustain that
rejection, along with the rejection of independent claims 9 and 15 argued
collectively with claim 1 and the dependent claims, which Appellant does
not argue separately.
Appeal 2019-001141
Application 13/955,711

10
CONCLUSION
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1, 3–9, 11–15, and 17–20
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is affirmed.
DECISION SUMMARY
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1, 3–9, 11–
15, 17–20
103 AAPA, Baum, Jessup 1, 3–9, 11–
15, 17–20

TIME PERIOD FOR 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