Bichot, Guillaume et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Dec 4, 2020

2019003825 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 4, 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.
12/087,839 11/17/2008 Guillaume Bichot PF060013 2994
147897 7590 12/04/2020
Tutunjian & Bitetto, P.C.
401 Broadhollow Road
Suite 402
Melville, NY 11747
EXAMINER
PENG, HSIUNGFEI
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2426
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/04/2020 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):
docketing@tb-iplaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte GUILLAUME BICHOT,
HELMUT BURKLIN, and ALI BOUDANI
Appeal 2019-003825
Application 12/087,839
Technology Center 2400
Before ALLEN R. MacDONALD, CAROLYN D. THOMAS, and
MICHAEL J. ENGLE, Administrative Patent Judges.
ENGLE, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 1–6 and 8–25, which are all of the claims pending in the
application. 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(a). Appellant identifies InterDigital CE Patent Holdings as the
real party in interest. Appeal Br. 4.
Appeal 2019-003825
Application 12/087,839

2
TECHNOLOGY
The application relates to the broadcasting and reception of Digital
Video Broadcast services associated with handheld terminals. Spec. 1:5–7.
ILLUSTRATIVE CLAIM
Claim 1 is illustrative and reproduced below with certain limitations at
issue emphasized:
1. A gateway comprising:
- a receiver receiving a request from a digital audio/video
terminal for a video stream, said video stream being
comprised in first frames compliant with digital video
broadcasting,
- an encapsulator encapsulating packets of the first frames
associated with said video stream in a second frame
comprising data representative of a time-slice, said time
slice being compatible with a wireless local area network
protocol, and a header comprising digital video
broadcasting compliant parameters intended to enable said
digital audio/video terminal to perform inverse time slice;
- a receiver receiving a signalling frame emitted by said
digital audio/video terminal and comprising a listening
period determined from said digital video broadcasting
compliant parameters and an information indicating that
said digital audio/video terminal enters a power saving
mode;
- a memory storing said second frame;
- a receiver receiving a control frame emitted by said digital
audio/video terminal and indicating that said digital
audio/video terminal leaves said power saving mode; and
- a transmitter transmitting over a wireless local area
network said second frame to the digital audio/video
terminal after receiving of said control frame.
Appeal 2019-003825
Application 12/087,839

3
REFERENCE
The Examiner relies on the following prior art references:
Name Number Date
Chow US 2011/0194481 A1 Aug. 11, 2011
Conley US 2006/0041935 A1 Feb. 23, 2006
Jyske US 2006/0291386 A1 Dec. 28, 2006
Larson US 6,463,307 B1 Oct. 8, 2002
Matilainen US 2007/0116274 A1 May 24, 2007
Paila US 2003/0096614 A1 May 22, 2003
REJECTIONS
The Examiner makes the following rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103:
Claims References Final Act.
1, 4–6, 8, 12–15,
18–21, 25
Matilainen, Larsson 2
2, 16 Matilainen, Larsson, Jyske 7
3, 17 Matilainen, Larsson, Jyske, Paila 7–8
9, 10, 22, 23 Matilainen, Larsson, Chow 8
11, 24 Matilainen, Larsson, Conley 9
ISSUE
Did the Examiner err in finding the combination of Matilainen and
Larsson teaches or suggests all the limitations recited in claim 1?
ANALYSIS
Claims 1, 4–6, 8, 12–15, 18–21, and 25
Appellant acknowledges that Matilainen discloses Digital Video
Broadcasting for Handheld Terminals (DVB-H) using multi-protocol
encapsulation (MPE) sections that can include time slicing. Appeal Br. 18
(citing Matilainen ¶¶ 40–42). Nevertheless, Appellant argues:
Matilainen does not disclose or even remotely suggest the use of
data representative of time-slice associated with a DVB service
in second frame which are compatible with a WLAN protocol.
Appeal 2019-003825
Application 12/087,839

4
Matilainen does not disclose how to apply the properties of the
time-slicing of a network of DVB type (DVB-H for example) on
a WLAN as to enable power saving for a terminal receiving
digital television services over a WLAN. Matilainen simply
mentions in paragraph [0048] that the terminal may additionally
include transmitting means for transmitting data over a WLAN
but it does not mean that such data transmitted over the WLAN
are still compliant with time-slicing as to enable power saving,
let alone how to apply the properties of the time-slicing of a
network of DVB type on a WLAN. There is no disclosure or
suggestion that the terminal in Matilainen may, in return,
transmit a listening period, determined from the time slicing
information, to the gateway.
Appeal Br. 18–19.
Matilainen discloses “a terminal 10 may include an antenna 12 . . . for
receiving signals from a digital broadcaster 14 via a digital broadcast
network, such as a . . . DVB-H network.” Matilainen ¶ 25. “[T]he terminal
can be coupled to the Internet, and thus the digital broadcast receiving
terminal, via a wireless access point (AP) 22 and/or a gateway (GTW) 24”
and “can be coupled to an AP . . . in accordance with any of a number of
different techniques such as . . . wireless LAN (WLAN) techniques such as
IEEE 802.11 (e.g., 802.11a, 802.11b, 802.11g, 802.11n, etc.).” Id. ¶ 26.
Matilainen further discloses time-slicing. E.g., Matilainen ¶ 7
(“[S]uch content is broadcast in bursts each of which includes time-sliced
content for a plurality of channels. This broadcasting of channels in time
slices achieves power saving in mobile devices . . . .”). “In addition to the IP
packets, the MPE sections can also include . . . time slicing information.”
Id. ¶ 42. “In other terms, in accordance with one time slicing technique,
instead of using the current default method of continuous digital
broadcasting (e.g., DVB-T) transmission, a time division multiplex-type of
Appeal 2019-003825
Application 12/087,839

5
allocation technique can be employed (see, e.g., DVB-H standard).” Id.
Using such time slicing with DVB-H, “services can be provided in bursts,
allowing a receiver to power down when the receiver is not receiving data,
and allowing the receiver to power up to receive data packets as necessary.”
Id.
The Examiner finds that Matilainen discloses WLAN and DVB-H and
“thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize there will be no
compatibility issue between the protocols of DVB-H and WLAN (such as
IEEE 802.11 standard) as the frame generated based on DVB-H service is
simply appended or encapsulated with the header of the WLAN protocol for
transmission via WLAN network.” Ans. 14 (further citing US
2017/0311362 as an example).
We are not persuaded by Appellant’s argument. Matilainen discloses
using DVB-H over a network and expressly discloses WLAN as one form of
the envisioned network. Matilainen ¶¶ 25–26. The Examiner has set forth
detailed reasoning for how a person of ordinary skill in the art would have
implemented DVB-H using WLAN. Ans. 14. Appellant’s argument does
not sufficiently address the Examiner’s findings or how a person of ordinary
skill in the art would have interpreted Matilainen’s multiple disclosures.
Turning to Larsson, Appellant states that “Larsson recites that a [base
station] may send instruction to a mobile terminal to begin hibernating with
hibernation parameters intended to the mobile terminal . . . according to the
IEEE 802.11” but “does not teach . . . that a signalling frame may be
transmitted by the terminal, the signalling frame indicating a listening period
determined from the digital video broadcasting compliant parameters
transmitted by the [base station] to the terminal.” Appeal Br. 19.
Appeal 2019-003825
Application 12/087,839

6
However, we agree with the Examiner that Appellant is attacking
Larsson individually rather than addressing the combination relied on by the
Examiner. Ans. 15–16 (relying on Matilainen, not Larsson, for disclosing
“the terminal receives a listening period determined from DVB compliant
parameters from the gateway based on WLAN networking protocol”).
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1, and
claims 4–6, 8, 12–15, 18–21, and 25, which Appellant argues are patentable
for similar reasons. See Appeal Br. 20–22; 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv).
Claims 2 and 16
Appellant argues that “Jyske fails to cure the deficiencies of
Matilainen and Larsson.” Appeal Br. 23. However, for the reasons
discussed above, we are not persuaded that Matilainen and Larsson are
deficient.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 2 and 16.
Claims 3 and 17
Appellant argues that “Paila fails to cure the deficiencies of
Matilainen and Larsson.” Appeal Br. 24. However, for the reasons
discussed above, we are not persuaded that Matilainen and Larsson are
deficient.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 3 and 17.
Claims 9, 10, 22, and 23
Appellant argues that “Chow fails to cure the deficiencies of
Matilainen and Larsson.” Appeal Br. 25. However, for the reasons
discussed above, we are not persuaded that Matilainen and Larsson are
deficient.
Appeal 2019-003825
Application 12/087,839

7
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 9, 10, 22,
and 23.
Claims 11 and 24
Appellant argues that “Conley fails to cure the deficiencies of
Matilainen and Larsson.” Appeal Br. 26. However, for the reasons
discussed above, we are not persuaded that Matilainen and Larsson are
deficient.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 11 and 24.
OUTCOME
The following table summarizes the outcome of each rejection:
Claims
Rejected
35
U.S.C. § References Affirmed Reversed
1, 4–6, 8, 12–
15, 18–21, 25
103 Matilainen, Larsson 1, 4–6, 8, 12–
15, 18–21, 25

2, 16 103 Matilainen, Larsson, Jyske 2, 16
3, 17 103 Matilainen, Larsson,
Jyske, Paila
3, 17
9, 10, 22, 23 103 Matilainen, Larsson, Chow 9, 10, 22, 23
11, 24 103 Matilainen, Larsson,
Conley
11, 24
OVERALL 1–6, 8–25
TIME TO RESPOND
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.
§ 1.36(a)(1)(iv).
AFFIRMED