Ex Parte Rambo

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 18, 2012

10620048 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 18, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte DARWIN RAMBO
____________

Appeal 2010-007370
Application 10/620,048
Technology Center 2400
____________

Before JOSEPH L. DIXON, ST. JOHN COURTENAY III, and
CARLA M. KRIVAK, Administrative Patent Judges.

DIXON, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2010-007370
Application 10/620,048

2
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of
claims 1-26. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
With respect to the appealed claims, Appellant merely present
arguments to claims 1-22 (App. Br. 7 and 31), but claims 1-26 are pending.
Appellant's Notice of Appeal filed on April 6, 2009, indicates that
Appellant's appeal the decision of the Examiner, which finally rejected
claims 1-12, 14-16, and 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) and finally rejected
claims 13, 17-19, and 21-26 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). Therefore,
the Examiner should clarify the status of the appealed claims and cancel the
non-appealed claims, if appropriate. In this decision, we have considered
only those arguments actually made by Appellants. Arguments which
Appellants could have made but did not make in the Brief have not been
considered and are deemed to be waived. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii).

Appellant's claimed invention is "a system and method to effectively
schedule and configure video and audio conferences. . . . In one
embodiment, a graphical user interface (GUI) provides for an intuitive
means to graphically view and configure one or more conferences,
participants, and conference call configuration settings." (Spec. 21, Abstract
of the Disclosure).
Independent claim 1, reproduced below, is representative of the
subject matter on appeal.
Appeal 2010-007370
Application 10/620,048

3
1. A system for configuring a conference call
comprising a computing device that is communicatively
coupled with a server, said computing device capable of
displaying, to a participant of a conference call, information
regarding a status of the conference call based on at least one
communication received from said server.

REFERENCES and REJECTIONS
The Examiner rejected claims 1-12, 14-16, and 20 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(e) based upon the teachings of Megiddo (U.S. Patent No. 6,559,863
B1). (Ans. 3-13).
The Examiner rejected claims 13, 17-19, 21, 22, 25, and 26 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) based upon the teachings of Megiddo in view of Ludwig
(U.S. Patent No. US 5,758,079). (Ans. 14-17).
The Examiner rejected claims 23 and 24 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
based upon the teachings of Megiddo in view of Flanagan (U.S. Patent No.
US 6,339,754 B1).

ANALYSIS
Anticipation
With respect to independent claim 1, Appellant's main contention is a
differentiation between an electronic conference room as disclosed by the
Megiddo reference and the claimed "conference call" (App. Br. 8-15).
Appellant submits that a conversation between multiple users in a
conference room as disclosed by Megiddo provides no privacy among
parties. Appellant's argument concerning privacy is not commensurate in
scope with the express language of independent claim 1 and therefore is not
persuasive of error in the Examiner's showing of anticipation. Appellant
Appeal 2010-007370
Application 10/620,048

4
maintains that the Examiner has not shown a teaching of "information
regarding a status of the conference call based on at least one
communication received from said server" as recited in the language of
independent claim 1. (App. Br. 12). We disagree with Appellant's
contention and find that the Examiner has identified the status of the
conference call based on at least one communication received from the
server. (Ans. 23). The Examiner has identified that the status in Appellant's
Specification is entitled to a broad interpretation and is taught by "a number
of participants in a conference call." (Id.). The Examiner maintains that in
Megiddo's figure 4B status information of particular user may be obtained
and displayed. (Id. at 24). We agree with the Examiner that Appellant's
argument does not show error in the Examiner's finding of anticipation.
Appellant further contends there is a fundamental difference between
Megiddo's electronic conference room and a conference call or conference
calls. (App. Br. 13-15). We note, however, that the language of independent
claim 1 does not support Appellant's proffered distinction of conference calls
since the broadest reasonable interpretation of independent claim 1 is a
single conference call and we further find the electronic conference room to
be a conference call. Therefore, Appellant's argument does not show error
in the Examiner's finding of anticipation of independent claim 1
With respect to dependent claim 4, we find the broadest reasonable
interpretation of the claim to be one conference call, as discussed above.
Appellant merely repeats the language of the claim and a portion of the
reference and maintains a general allegation that the Examiner has not
shown a teaching of every element of a claim 4. (App. Br. 15-16). Thus, it
is our view that Appellant has made a general allegation in the Briefs that
Appeal 2010-007370
Application 10/620,048

5
the above-mentioned claim defines a patentable invention without
specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably
distinguishes over the cited references. A statement which merely points out
what a claim recites will not be considered an argument for separate
patentability of the claim. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv). We find
Appellant's appeal is based on a series of conclusory arguments presented in
the Briefs. This form of argument is ineffective in establishing the
patentability of the claims on appeal. See Ex parte Belinne, No. 2009-
004693, 2009 WL 2477843 at *3-4 (BPAI Aug. 10, 2009) (informative).
Therefore, Appellant's argument does not show error in the Examiner's
finding of anticipation of claim 4.
With respect to independent claim 7, Appellant presents the same
proffered distinction between a conference call and a conference room,
which we found unpersuasive with respect to independent claim 1. (App.
Br. 16-20). Therefore, we find Appellant's argument to be unpersuasive
with respect to independent claim 7. The Examiner maintains that the
conference groups of Megiddo are considered different conference calls and
Megiddo explains conference call identifiers as groups. (Ans. 26). We
agree with the Examiner, and we find that the language of independent claim
7 to be broader than requiring multiple calls since the language of
independent claim 7 merely recites "positioning said selected participant
identifiers into at least one side conference call identifier" rather than into a
separate call. While the language of the preamble recites configuring side
conference calls, the language of the claim never carries out this function.
Therefore, Appellant's argument does not show error in the Examiner's
finding of anticipation of claim 7.
Appeal 2010-007370
Application 10/620,048

6
With respect to dependent claim 10, Appellant merely repeats the
teachings of the reference and the claim language and maintains that all
elements are not taught. (App. Br. 21-23). Therefore, Appellant's argument
does not show error in the Examiner's finding of anticipation of claim 10.
With respect to independent claim 11, Appellant maintains that
"Megiddo does not teach what is recited in Claim 11. Megiddo does not
teach 'configuring one or more conference calls,' or 'creating conference
identifiers,' or 'grouping participant identifiers into said conference
identifiers.'" (App. Br. 24). We disagree with Appellant and find that the
broadest reasonable interpretation of independent claim 11 is directed to a
single conference call. Appellant maintains that "Megiddo does not disclose
'conference identifiers.'" (App. Br. 25). The Examiner maintains that "users
111, 112 and 132 as participant identifiers and conference groups 110, 120,
and 130 as conference identifiers. Users 111, 112, can be grouped into
conference groups 110 or 120. The moving of icon or users into different
group is considered configuring a conference call." (Ans. 29). We agree
with the Examiner and further find that to maintain the groupings in
Megiddo there necessarily would be some identifiers to store and display the
corresponding groups of individuals on the screen and in the processing.
The language of independent claim 11 does not require display of these
identifiers. Therefore, Appellant's argument does not show error in the
Examiner's finding of anticipation of claim 11.
With respect to dependent claims 14 and 15, Appellant repeats the
language of the claims and maintains that Megiddo, the portion of column 3
identified by the Examiner, does not teach the claimed invention. (App. Br.
26-28). While we agree with Appellant that column 3 alone does not
Appeal 2010-007370
Application 10/620,048

7
expressly teach the claimed invention, the Examiner has identified Megiddo,
column 6 and figures 2b and 2c with respect to parent independent claim 11.
(Ans. 28-29). Additionally, the Examiner identifies column 1 of Megiddo
with respect to teaching a real-time video picture as one of the options in the
video display. Furthermore, we note that the discussion of figure 2A and
corresponding disclosure at column 5 discloses "the participants may be
represented by actual scanned pictures of individual participants or actual
video pictures of the participants via a camera connected to each of the
participant's personal computer. This allows for graphic images to interact
not only based on interest of their conversations, but also based on
appearance." (Megiddo, col. 5). Therefore, we find Appellant's general
allegation to be unpersuasive of error in the Examiner's finding of
anticipation of dependent claims 14 and 15.
With respect to independent claim 20, Appellant repeats the language
of independent claim 20 and maintains that Megiddo does not disclose
anything about "one or more conference identifiers" and relies upon the
arguments advanced with respect to independent claims 1, 7, and 11. (App.
Br. 29-30). As discussed above, based upon the broadest reasonable
interpretation of the claimed invention, Appellant's argument does not show
error in the Examiner’s finding of anticipation of claim 20.
Dependent claims 2, 3, 5, 6, 8, 9, 12, and 16 have not been separately
argued by Appellant and will fall with their corresponding parent claims.

Obviousness
With respect to dependent claims 17, 18, 19, 21, and 22, Appellant
repeats the language of the claim and the portions of the Ludwig reference
Appeal 2010-007370
Application 10/620,048

8
relied upon by the Examiner. Appellant generally alleges the Examiner has
not shown a teaching of every limitation without any discussion of the
combined teachings of Megiddo and Ludwig. (App. Br. 31-36). As
discussed above the general allegation does not show error in the Examiner's
conclusion of obviousness of these claims, and we will sustain the rejection
thereof.
With regards to dependent claims 23 and 24, Appellant provides no
arguments regarding the Flanagan reference. Thus, we will sustain the
rejection pro forma. Arguments which Appellant could have made but did
not make in the Brief have not been considered and are deemed to be
waived.
Dependent claims 13, 21, 25, and 26 have not been separately argued
by Appellant and will fall with their corresponding parent claims.
Appellant's Reply Brief contains similar arguments which we find
unpersuasive of error in the Examiner's showing of anticipation and
obviousness.

CONCLUSION
The Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 1-12, 14-16, and 20
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e). The Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 13,
17-19, and 21-26 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).

DECISION
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-26 is affirmed.
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)(2010).
Appeal 2010-007370
Application 10/620,048

9

AFFIRMED

llw/Pgc