Ex Parte 6122482 et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

May 22, 2014

90012127 (P.T.A.B. May. 22, 2014)

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.
90/012,127 02/03/2012 6122482 850-32 9330
23117 7590 05/23/2014
NIXON & VANDERHYE, PC
901 NORTH GLEBE ROAD, 11TH FLOOR
ARLINGTON, VA 22203
EXAMINER
REICHLE, KARIN M
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3992
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/23/2014 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte GLOBAL COMMUNICATIONS, INC.
Patent Owner and Appellant
____________

Appeal 2014-001761
Reexamination Control 90/012,127
Patent 6,122,482
Technology Center 3900
____________

Before JAMES T. MOORE, BRADLEY W. BAUMEISTER, and
ANDREW J. DILLON, Administrative Patent Judges.

BAUMEISTER, Administrative Patent Judge

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal 2014-001761
Reexamination Control 90/012,127
Patent 6,122,482

2
SUMMARY
Patent Owner appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
rejections of claims 1, 4, 6-7, 12-20, 27-28, 31-33, and 35-39:
Claims 1, 4, 6-7, 12-20, 27-28, 31-33, and 35-39 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as anticipated by Novak (US 5,787,335; issued
July 28, 1998).
Claims 1, 4, 6, 7, 12-20, 27, 28, 31-33, and 35-39 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as anticipated by Novak as evidenced by Green
(US 5,073,930; issued Dec. 17, 1991) and/or the Bell Declaration (filed
June 27, 2001 in US Application 09/6654,443).
Claims 1, 4, 6, 7, 12-20, 27, 28, 31-33, and 35-39 alternatively stand
rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Novak in view of Green
and/or the Bell Declaration.
Claims 2, 3, 5, 9, 11, 21, 23-26, 29, and 30 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Novak in view of Green alone or, in the
alternative, also as evidenced as obvious by the Bell Declaration.
We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We review the appealed
rejections for error based upon the issues identified by Patent Owner, and in
light of the arguments and evidence produced thereon. Cf. Ex parte Frye,
94 USPQ2d 1072, 1075 (BPAI 2010) (precedential) (citing In re Oetiker,
977 F.2d 1443, 1445 (Fed. Cir. 1992)).
We affirm.

Appeal 2014-001761
Reexamination Control 90/012,127
Patent 6,122,482

3
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The present appeal is taken from a reexamination of Green ’482
(US 6,122,482; issued Sep. 19, 2000) (“Green ’482”). Green ’482 issued
from patent application 09/001,484 (filed Dec. 31, 1997), which is a
grandchild continuation-in-part application of abandoned
US application 08/394,234 (“the ’234 Application;” filed Feb. 22, 1995).
Patent Owner contends that
[a]ll prior art rejections in this reexamination are based on the
Novak patent, which post-dates [Patent Owner’s] 2/22/95
effective filing date [of the abandoned ’234 Application]. If the
claims in reexamination are entitled to priority to the 1995
application, then Novak is removed as a reference and all
rejections are withdrawn.”
App. Br. 8. We will therefore summarize the invention as disclosed in the
abandoned ’234 Application and as set forth the presently appealed claim 1.
1

In the abandoned’234 Application, Patent Owner disclosed “a satellite
broadcasting receiving and distribution system and more particularly to a
broadcasting receiving and distribution system that will allow for the
transmission of vertical and horizontal or left-hand circular and right-hand
circular polarization signals [received from a satellite dish] to be transmitted
simultaneously via a single coaxial cable.” ’234 Spec. 1. The originally-
disclosed satellite system is depicted in FIG. 1 of the ’234 Application – the
sole figure. Figure 1 is reproduced below:

1
Patent Owner argues all pending claims together as a group. See App.
Br. 8-30; Reply Br. 1-22. Accordingly, we select independent claim 1 as
representative. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii)(2010).
Appeal 2014-001761
Reexamination Control 90/012,127
Patent 6,122,482

4

Figure 1 of the ‘234 Application depicts a satellite dish which receives
vertically and horizontally polarized microwave signals over satellite dish 1.
’234 Spec. 8. The following except of the ’234 Specification summarizes
how the microwave signals received at the satellite 1 are split and converted
to frequencies that can be transmitted over coaxial cable 13:
[T]he receiving satellite 1 is connected to a low-noise block
converter (LNB) 2 for amplifying the respective polarized
signals . . . This LNB is coupled to the head-in equipment
frequency processor 44. Accordingly, after signals are
received, they pass the low-noise block converter 2, to provide
for the signals to enter the head-in equipment frequency
processor 44 (illustrated in dashed lines) via conduits 3 and 4.
The head-in equipment frequency processor 44 provides
for the signals via lines 3 and 4 to be converted to the
frequencies which the present day amplifiers can transport via
Appeal 2014-001761
Reexamination Control 90/012,127
Patent 6,122,482

5
converters 5 and 7, respectively. From the conduits 3 and 4, the
signals or transponders are transmitted to a first converter or
down converter 5 and a second converter or up converter 7,
respectively. These frequency converters convert the entered
frequencies to frequencies which the present day amplifiers can
transport.
. . . .
In the down converter, 5, the transponders are converted
down to a specified frequency. This specified frequency is the
frequency that is required for the present day amplifiers to
transport. The newly converted frequencies are amplified
through the amplifying means 6. . .
In the up converter 7, the transponders are converted to a
specified frequency. The converted frequencies then are
converted down via down converter 8. This process of
converting up and then down provides for frequencies to be
converted without difficulties and avoiding the forbidden
conversion area.
The converted signals are transferred to the four way
splitter 10 in order to combine the frequency of the amplifier
signal of 6 and frequency from converter 8.
’234 Spec. 8-9.
Of particular relevance is the above depiction of, as well as the
above associated disclosure of, the two paths the signals 3, 4 take
within the head-in equipment frequency processor 44. One signal
travels through a down converter 5, and the other signal travels
through up converter 7, followed by separate down converter 8. That
is, both of the two signals are depicted and disclosed in the
’234 Application as undergoing at least one frequency conversions.
We now compare independent claim 1 of the present
reexamination application (emphasis added):
Appeal 2014-001761
Reexamination Control 90/012,127
Patent 6,122,482

6
1. In a satellite receiving and distribution system that
receives signals from at least one satellite and distributes said
received signals over a cable to at least one remotely located
satellite receiver having a frequency range and producing a
control signal, said system including at least one satellite dish
that receives, from the at least one satellite, a first block of
polarized signals comprising, a first set of plural channels and a
second block of polarized signals comprising a second set of
plural channels, said system further comprising:
head-in equipment coupled to said satellite dish, said
head-in equipment applying both said first polarized signal
block and said second polarized signal block to said cable in
different segments of the frequency spectrum such that said
cable simultaneously carries both said first and second
polarized signal blocks to said satellite receiver, said head-in
equipment including a first block converter that frequency
converts at least one of said first and second polarized signal
blocks for application to said cable;
a second block converter coupled to said cable and
located in proximity to said satellite receiver, said second block
converter further frequency converting said frequency-
converted polarized signal block to a frequency band within the
receiving frequency range of said satellite receiver, wherein the
output of the second block converter is a block of plural
channels; and
an electrically operated switch located with said satellite
receiver and coupled between said second block converter and
said satellite receiver, said switch operating to select between
said first signal block and said second signal block for
application to the satellite receiver in response to said control
signal produced by said satellite receiver to enable said satellite
receiver to receive any of the plural channels in the first and
second sets.
The emphasis highlights the fact that claim 1 only requires frequency
conversion of one of the signals in the head-in equipment 44 – not both.
Appeal 2014-001761
Reexamination Control 90/012,127
Patent 6,122,482

7
CONTENTIONS AND ARGUMENTS
2

The Examiner finds that claim 1 is not entitled to the priority date of
the abandoned ’234 Application because the ’234 Application only provides
written description for a head-in equipment frequency processor (“head-in
equipment”) that converts both signals 3, 4 exiting the LNB converter 2.
The Examiner further finds that, in contrast, claim 1 of the present reissue
application covers broader subject matter because claim 1 only requires that
at least one of the signals exiting the low noise block converter be frequency
converted. Ans. 3-30. That is, in addition to embodiments where both
signals leaving the LNB converter are frequency converted in the head-in
equipment, claim 1 additionally covers embodiments where only one of the
signals is frequency converted in the head-in equipment, while the other
signal passes through the head-in equipment without undergoing any
frequency conversions (“pass-through” embodiments).
It is undisputed that claim 1 is, in fact, broad enough to cover pass-
through embodiments. See, e.g., dependent claim 12, which recites “[a]
system as in claim 1 wherein said first block converter includes a first
converting circuit for converting said first block of signals to a first
frequency band without further frequency converting said second block of
signals.” Patent Owner maintains, though, that the disclosure of the
’234 Application is broader than the single embodiment of the head-in

2
Rather than repeat the Examiner’s positions and Patent Owner’s arguments
in their entirety, we refer to the following documents for their respective
details: the Appeal Brief (“App. Br.”) filed August 12, 2013; the Examiner’s
Answer (“Ans.”) mailed Sep. 27, 2013; and the Reply Brief (“Reply Br.”)
filed Oct. 28, 2013.
Appeal 2014-001761
Reexamination Control 90/012,127
Patent 6,122,482

8
equipment that is depicted in FIG. 1. Patent Owner urges that the
’234 Application additionally provides written description and enablement
for a complete genus of head-in frequency processors, including a sub-genus
of head-in equipment that operates via the pass-through mode. App. Br. 8-
30; Reply Br. 1-22.
Patent Owner’s reasoning is as follows (App. Br. 8-11): the
’234 Application does not place any limitations on the degree by which the
up converter 7 raises the frequency of the signals entering the head-in
processor 44 on conduit 4. Likewise, the ’234 Application does not place
any limitations on the degree by which the down converter 8 lowers the
frequency of the signals exiting up converter 7. As such,
[t]he up converter 7 followed by a down converter 8 allows the
circuit to place the frequency block anywhere in the frequency
spectrum that is desired. [Sklar Decl. ¶9] Specifically, by
providing an up converter 7 followed by a down converter 8,
the circuit of the [‘234] application can translate the input block
frequency up, down, or leave it exactly where it is. [Sklar Decl.
¶10].
App. Br. 8-9.
Patent Owner further contends that the ’234 Application “repeatedly
emphasizes that the disclosed technology is intended to provide a very
flexible and low cost solution.” Reply Br. 11 (emphasis in original).
Because of this,
one skilled in the art would immediately recognize that the “no
net frequency change” result can be obtained by (i) by making
two (or more) frequency changes or (ii) by making no change
whatsoever. This second option is one that would have been
clearly recognized by one of ordinary skill in 1995. For example,
making two frequency changes with no net frequency change
would be immediately understood by one of ordinary skill in the
Appeal 2014-001761
Reexamination Control 90/012,127
Patent 6,122,482

9
art to be unnecessary if you want to leave the frequency of one of
the two polarization signals where it is. Thus, the second option
would be inherently understood by those persons upon reading the
[‘234] specification.
Reply Br. 12.
To buttress the assertion that one of ordinary skill in the art would
have understood that the ’234 Application inherently discloses all three of
these operating modes (net up conversion, net down conversion, and pass-
through embodiments), Patent Owner submits in conjunction with the
Appeal Brief, the Declaration of Bernard Sklar, Ph.D. pursuant to 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.131 (“the Sklar Declaration”). Dr. Sklar avers inter alia that “it is [his]
opinion that the [’234] application enables the full scope of the recitations
above in the context of the claims as a whole, and demonstrates to someone
of ordinary skill in the art that the inventors had possession of such
recitations.” Scklar Decl. ¶ 21.
Patent Owner further alleges that “the Examiner correctly determined
in making her final rejection that the [’234] application discloses an
operating mode where there is no [net] change in frequency with respect to
original signal 4 once it has gone through converters 7 and 8.” Reply Br. 2.
Patent Owner then contends “that the Examiner’s factual finding is
determinative in resolving the priority issue in PO’s favor and requires
reversal of all rejections.” Reply Br. 3. The Examiner, though, disputes that
she has agreed that the ’234 Application inherently discloses an operating
mode that frequency shifts only one, but not both signals. See, e.g., Ans. 28-
29.
Appeal 2014-001761
Reexamination Control 90/012,127
Patent 6,122,482

10
ANALYSIS
I.
We find unpersuasive Patent Owner’s argument that the
’234 Application inherently discloses a pass-through operating mode where
the original signal 4 undergoes no net change in frequency once it has gone
through both converters 7 and 8. While the Specification generally discloses
that some degree of up conversion takes place and then some degree of
down conversion respectively takes place in these two converters (e.g.,
’234 Spec. 8-9), that disclosure is simply too general and insufficient to
reasonably conclude that the ’234 Application further discloses the specific
situation of the frequency up conversion being chosen to be exactly the same
as the ensuing frequency down conversion. “Inherency, however, may not
be established by probabilities or possibilities. The mere fact that a certain
thing may result from a given set of circumstances is not sufficient.” In re
Robertson, 169 F.3d 743, 745 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (citations and internal
quotation marks omitted). “[O]ne cannot disclose a forest in the original
application, and then later pick a tree out of the forest and say here is my
invention.” Purdue Pharma L.P. v. Faulding Inc., 230 F.3d 1320, 1326
(Fed. Cir. 2000). Rather, the Specification must provide some guides or
“blaze marks” that disclose the claimed invention “‘specifically, as
something appellants actually invented.’” Ariad Pharm., Inc. v. Eli Lilly &
Co., 598 F.3d 1336, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2010).
Moreover, as noted above, the ’234 Specifications expressly states
The head-in equipment frequency processor 44 provides
for the signals via lines 3 and 4 to be converted to the
frequencies which the present day amplifiers can transport via
Appeal 2014-001761
Reexamination Control 90/012,127
Patent 6,122,482

11
converters 5 and 7, respectively. From the conduits 3 and 4, the
signals or transponders are transmitted to a first converter or
down converter 5 and a second converter or up converter 7,
respectively. These frequency converters convert the entered
frequencies to frequencies which the present day amplifiers can
transport.
’234 Spec. 8-9. This passage indicates that for each of the two signals
3, 4 leaving the LNB converter 2, a net down conversion of frequency
blocks takes place in the head-in equipment 44. As such, the only
reasonable conclusion is that the ’234 Application only discloses that
some unspecified range of net frequency down conversions takes
place on each line in the head-in equipment 44.
At oral argument,
3
Counsel for Patent Owner argued that while the
frequency received at the satellite dish is higher than the frequencies than the
co-axial cable or amplifiers could transport, one of ordinary skill in the art at
the time of the invention would have understood that frequency down
conversion takes place in the LNB converter 2, and as such, the frequencies
entering the head-in equipment 44 are already converted down to
frequencies that can be transported by the amplifiers. Trans. 6:8-8:11. Due
to this alleged fact, Patent Owner urges that one of ordinary skill in the art
would have understood that head-in equipment 44 could provide frequency
pass-through embodiments as well as frequency down converting
embodiments. Trans.3:22-5:22. Patent Owner further asserts that the Bell
Declaration supports this position. Trans. 6:22-7:2.
We do not find support for Patent Owner’s argument in the Bell
Declaration. The Bell Declaration does state that “[l]ow noise block

3
Oral arguments were held on April 9, 2014.
Appeal 2014-001761
Reexamination Control 90/012,127
Patent 6,122,482

12
converters were well-known . . . as devices that process and output blocks of
multiple received satellite channels.” Bell Decl. ¶ 3. The Bell Declaration
further states that the LNB converter outputs signals to the converters of the
head-in equipment. Bell Decl. ¶ 4. Also, “the low noise block converter 24
[of the Figure 5 embodiment of the present application] places a block of
received channels onto the cable 16a via an amplifier 32a without any
further conversion or channelization.” Bell Decl. ¶ 5. But the Declaration
does not provide evidence that the LNB converter was known to down
convert frequencies at the time subject matter disclosed in the ’234
Application was invented. The pass-through embodiment depicted in Figure
5 of the present application was not a part of the original ’234 Application.
II.
Even if we were to accept, arguendo, Patent Owner’s assertion that
the ’234 Application does inherently disclose a range of net frequency
conversions that includes a zero net conversion, we still disagree with Patent
Owner’s further contention (Reply Br. 3) that such a finding would end the
present inquiry. The relevant inquiry for determining whether priority exists
is not merely whether the ’234 Application may disclose the pass-through
embodiment inherently. Rather, the relevant inquiry is whether
’234 Application contains adequate written description to support the pass-
through embodiment covered by claim 1.
To contain adequate written description, in turn, the ’234 Application
would need to convey with reasonable clarity to those skilled in the art that,
as of the filing date sought, Patent Owner was in possession of the invention
as now claimed. See, e.g., Vas-Cath, Inc., 935 F.2d 1555 at 1563-64 (Fed.
Appeal 2014-001761
Reexamination Control 90/012,127
Patent 6,122,482

13
Cir. 1991). For several reasons, though, the ’234 Application does not
convey with reasonable clarity that Patent Owner was in possession of the
pass-through embodiment at the time of the ’234 Application’s original
filing. These reasons are discussed below.
As explained in the preceding section, the ’234 Application discloses
that the head-in equipment frequency processor 44 converts both of the
signals received from the LNB converter down to frequencies that could be
transported by amplifiers of that day. ’234 Spec. 8-9. Furthermore, the ’234
Specification states that the “process of converting up [in up converter 7]
and down [in down converter 8] provides for frequencies to be converted
without difficulties and avoiding the forbidden conversion area.”
’234 Spec. 9. These passages reasonably indicate that at the time of filing
the ’234 Application, the inventors only envisioned (1) net frequency down
conversions taking place in the head-in equipment, and (2) this net
frequency down conversion was – for some reason relating to a difficulty the
inventor perceived to be associated with a direct down conversion – carried
out specifically in two steps, as opposed to one step.
4

The Sklar Declaration does not overcome these findings. The Sklar
Declaration sets forth Declarant’s explanation for why one of ordinary skill
in the art would have understood the ’234 Application to inherently disclose
a pass-through embodiment. Sklar Decl. ¶¶ 4-21. However, the Sklar
Declaration sets forth no persuasive facts indicating that one of ordinary skill
in the art would have further understood that the inventors were in

4
At oral argument, Counsel for Patent Owner acknowledged that neither he,
nor Declarant Sklar, had any alternative explanation for what the passage
regarding the forbidden conversion area might mean. Trans. 12:4-24.
Appeal 2014-001761
Reexamination Control 90/012,127
Patent 6,122,482

14
possession of the pass-through embodiment at the time the ’234 Application
was filed. See Sklar Decl. ¶ 21 (stating that “it is [Declarant’s] opinion that
the [’234] application enables the full scope of the recitations above in the
context of the claims as a whole, and,” without any further factual support,
“demonstrates to someone of ordinary skill in the art that the inventors had
possession of such recitations.”) If we were to accept the premise that a
showing of what one skilled in the art would have understood a specification
to objectively disclose would constitute sufficient evidence to further
demonstrate that the inventors were also in possession of the full scope of
this disclosure, this would conflate the tests for written description and
enablement.
Contrary to Patent Owner’s arguments contained in the Reply Brief,
the fact that the present inventors desired a flexible and low cost solution
only further supports our conclusion that the inventors did not have
possession of the pass-through embodiment at the time of the filing of the
’234 Application. If the inventors had, in fact, envisioned a pass-through
embodiment, common sense would dictate that the ’234 Specification would
have expressly set forth the pass-through embodiment in some manner,
whether in writing or in the Figures. This is especially true if low cost was a
factor: providing no converters in a pass through embodiment seemingly
would have been cheaper than affirmatively providing two converters that
serve no purpose other than to cancel each other out.
Moreover, the drawings of the ’234 Application demonstrate that the
inventors were aware of how to set forth important features of their
invention in the form of alternative embodiments. See FIG. 1 (depicting
Appeal 2014-001761
Reexamination Control 90/012,127
Patent 6,122,482

15
alternatives embodiments 45, 46 for the head-out receiver processor, but no
drawings depict any alternative embodiments for the head-in equipment 44,
such as a pass-through embodiment that completely eliminates the up
converter and down converter from one of the signal branches). Likewise,
as noted supra, the written specification of the ’234 Application merely
states that the head-in equipment converts signals to frequencies that
amplifiers could transport (’234 Spec. 8-9); it says nothing about passing
through signals that were already converted to such frequencies.
To summarize, the ’234 Application fails to reasonably demonstrate
that one of ordinary skill in the art would have understood the inventors to
have been in possession of the pass-through embodiment at the time that
application was filed. Rather, the evidence strongly indicates that the
inventors only had possession of head-in equipment 44 that provides a net
frequency down conversion of the signals received from the LNB
converter 2 on both of lines 3, 4.

CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, Patent Owner has not persuaded us of error
in the Examiner’s conclusion that representative claim 1 is entitled to
priority to the ’234 Application. As such, Patent Owner has not persuaded
us of error in the Examiner’s anticipation or obviousness rejection of
representative claim 1. Accordingly, we will sustain the Examiner’s
rejection of that claim, as well as claims 4, 6-7, 12-20, 27-28, 31-33, and 35-
39, which are not separately argued.
Appeal 2014-001761
Reexamination Control 90/012,127
Patent 6,122,482

16
Furthermore, while not a basis of our decision, should there be further
prosecution on the merits in this or any related case, the Examiner may wish
to additionally consider whether claim 1’s language, “a first block converter
that frequency converts at least one of said first and second polarized signal
blocks for application to said cable,” constitutes means-plus-function
language pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶6. If so, the Examiner should further
consider whether such means-plus-function language covers other equivalent
structures that were not disclosed in the ’234 application, and thereby creates
any additional basis to deny priority to claims containing this language.
It is true that a claim limitation that does not employ the phrase
“means for” is presumed to be not invoking 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 6. However,
such a presumption is rebuttable. See, e.g., Welker Bearing Co. v PHD,
Inc., 550 F.3d 1090, 1096 (Fed Cir. 2008) (holding that an unadorned term
that is simply a nonce word, or a verbal construct that is not recognized as
the name of structure, is simply a substitute for the term “means for”). We
therefore review the ’234 Specification, as well as Patent Owner’s
arguments, to determine how the term “a first block converter” should be
interpreted.
It is noteworthy that the ’234 Specification nowhere employs the term
“first block converter.” The term only appears in the present Application’s
claims, as follows (emphasis added):
head-in equipment coupled to said satellite dish, said
head-in equipment applying both said first polarized signal
block and said second polarized signal block to said cable in
different segments of the frequency spectrum such that said
cable simultaneously carries both said first and second
polarized signal blocks to said satellite receiver, said head-in
Appeal 2014-001761
Reexamination Control 90/012,127
Patent 6,122,482

17
equipment including a first block converter that frequency
converts at least one of said first and second polarized signal
blocks for application to said cable[.]
To summarize, this clause sets forth that the “the head-in equipment
include[s] a first block converter.” As such, this clause renders it reasonably
clear that the first block converter must refer to some element or
combination of elements that are a subportion of the head-in equipment 44 –
not the head-in equipment processor, itself.
We therefore find it reasonable to interpret the term “first block
converter” as reading on the following combination of elements of the ’234
Application’s head-in equipment 44: the two conduit lines 3, 4, inside the
head-in equipment 44, in combination with the second conduit’s up
converter 7 and down converter 8, as well as the first conduit’s down
converter 5, and optionally in further combination with amplifier 6. The
“first block converter” alternatively could read on the following components
of the FIG. 5 head-in equipment 14c of the present application: the two
conduit lines 26a, 26b inside the head-in equipment 14c, in combination
with the one conduit’s up converter 30, and optionally in further
combination with the first conduit’s amplifier 32a, as well. Patent Owner
does not dispute that this is a reasonable interpretation. See Trans. 13:16-
14:10.
As such, we understand the term “first block converter,” as used by
Patent Owner in the present application, to be not referring to any particular
structure that would be well-understood by one of ordinary skill in the art.
Rather, the term appears to be intended to be a nonce word, covering any
structural means (whether disclosed or not) that functions to convert at least
Appeal 2014-001761
Reexamination Control 90/012,127
Patent 6,122,482

18
one of two incoming signals such that the resulting two signals have non-
overlapping frequencies.
This interpretation is supported by Patent Owner’s arguments:
PO drafted its independent claims not to require internal
implementation details of the ’482 Figure 2 or other
embodiments, but rather to direct them to the overall effect of
block frequency shifting as applied to the cable. It is
undisputed that PO disclosed in [the ’234 Application] a
generic solution including an operating mode where at least one
of two blocks simultaneously applied to the cable is frequency
converted relative to the frequencies of the input blocks.
App. Br. 14. Patent Owner also argues that there is “no requirement to claim
Details of preferred embodiments” (App. Br. 19-21); the present claims
aptly and correctly describe the . . . [’234 Application’s] circuit operation
(App. Br. 21-22).

DECISION
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1, 4, 6-7, 12-20, 27-28, 31-
33, and 35-39 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). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(1)(iv)(2010).

AFFIRMED

Appeal 2014-001761
Reexamination Control 90/012,127
Patent 6,122,482

19
ak

Patent Owner:

Nixon & Vanderhye, PC
901 North Glebe Raod
11
th
Floor
Arlington, VA 22203

Third Party Reqeuster:

Greenblum & Bernstein, PLC
1950 Roland Clarke Place
Reston, VA 20191