Ex Parte 6,208,636 et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 13, 2014

90011602 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 13, 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.
90/011,602 03/25/2011 6,208,636 945.1003001 6241
35236 7590 03/14/2014
The Culbertson Group, P.C.
3355 Bee Cave Road, Suite 604
Austin, TX 78746
EXAMINER
YIGDALL, MICHAEL J
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3992
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/14/2014 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 Northpoint Technology, Ltd.
Patent Owner and Appellant
____________________

Appeal 2014-001668
Reexamination Control No. 90/011,602
Patent US 6,208,636 B1
Technology Center 3900
____________________

Before ST. JOHN COURTENAY III, THU A. DANG, and
CARL W. WHITEHEAD JR., Administrative Patent Judges.

COURTENAY, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2014-001668
Reexamination Control No. 90/011,602
Patent US 6,208,636 B1

2

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Reexamination Proceedings
A third-party request by EchoStar Technologies L.L.C. for ex parte
reexamination of U.S. Patent No. 6,208,636 B1 (“the ‘636 patent”),
currently owned by Northpoint Technology, Ltd. (“Owner”), was filed on
March 25, 2011, and was assigned Reexamination Control No. 90/011,602.
The ‘636 patent, entitled “APPARATUS AND METHOD FOR
PROCESSING SIGNALS SELECTED FROM MULTIPLE DATA
STREAMS,” issued March 27, 2001, to Carmen Tawil and Saleem Tawil,
based on Application No. 09/085,925, filed May 28, 1998.
Related Litigation
“Claims 1, 7, 8, 14-16, 18, and 19 are no longer subject to
reexamination in light of the final decision in Northpoint Technology Ltd. v.
DirectTV Inc. No. 2011-1524 (Fed Cir 2012).” (Aff’d, R. 36).” (App. Br. 3).
The Federal Circuit decision, dated May 11, 2012, affirms a district court
decision finding that claims 1, 7, 8, 14-16, 18, and 19 are anticipated by U.S.
Patent No. 5,940,737 to Eastman and are invalid. (See Final Office Action 2
(Sep. 4, 2012) [hereinafter FOA]).
Appeal
Owner appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of
claims 2, 5, 9, 12, 20-32, and 34-36, which are subject to this appeal. (App.
Br. 3). We note that dependent claims 2 and 5 depend directly or indirectly
from invalid independent claim 1, and dependent claims 9 and 12 depend
directly or indirectly from invalid independent claim 8. Claim 33 has been
Appeal 2014-001668
Reexamination Control No. 90/011,602
Patent US 6,208,636 B1

3

cancelled. (See note 2 infra). We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. §§
134(b) and 306. We affirm all rejections of all claims before us on appeal.
The claims are directed to “digital data transmission and more
particularly to an apparatus and method for selecting from multiple data
streams to produce a single data output.” (‘636 patent, col. 1, ll. 7-9).
Dependent claim 2 (which includes the limitations of claim 1) and
independent claim 20 (added by amendment) are reproduced below and are
representative of the claimed subject matter:1
1. An apparatus for receiving multiple data streams, the apparatus
comprising:
(a) a first switch connected to a first input and having a first switch
output, the first switch adapted to be selectively enabled for passing a first
stream of data signals from the first input to the first switch output, the first
stream of data signals including first channel data;
(b) a second switch connected to a second input and having a second
switch output, the second switch adapted to be selectively enabled for
passing a second stream of data signals from the second input to the second
switch output, the second stream of data signals including second channel
data different from the first channel data;
(c) a data stream junction connected to the first switch output and the
second switch output and having a junction output;
(d) a controller for receiving a channel select input related to a desired
channel output to be formed from one of the first channel data or second
channel data, and, in response to the channel select input, for enabling the
one of the first switch or the second switch which receives the stream of data
including the channel data from which the desired channel output is to be
formed; and

1 See App. Br. 24: “Appellant includes claim 1 in this claims appendix in
view of the dependence of claims 2 and 5 on claim 1, and similarly includes
claim 8 in this claims appendix in view of the dependence of claims 9 and 12
on claim 8. Appellant therefore submits claims 1 and 8 are ‘involved in the
appeal’ under 37 C.F.R. §41.37(c)(1)(v).”
Appeal 2014-001668
Reexamination Control No. 90/011,602
Patent US 6,208,636 B1

4

(e) a memory device operatively connected to the controller, the
memory device storing first signal input information indicating the
respective switch through which the first channel data is received and further
storing second signal input information indicating the respective switch
through which the second channel data is received.

2. The apparatus of claim 1 further comprising:
(a) a signal processor connected to receive data signals from the data
stream junction; and
(b) wherein the controller controls the operation of the signal
processor to produce the desired channel output from data signals received
from the data stream junction.

20. A method for receiving multiple data streams at a reception
location, the method comprising the steps of:
(a) at first low noise block converter circuitry, receiving a first data
stream transmitted from a first radio source located in a first direction from
the reception location, the first data stream including multiple first carrier
frequencies carrying channel data for producing respective channel outputs,
a carrier frequency being the frequency onto which data is modulated for
transmission;
(b) at second low noise block converter circuitry, receiving a second
data stream transmitted from a second radio source located in a second
direction from the reception location, different from the first direction, the
second data stream including multiple second carrier frequencies carrying
channel data for producing respective channel outputs, at least one of the
second carrier frequencies having the same RF frequency as one of the first
carrier frequencies, the second data stream being received at the second low
noise block converter circuitry simultaneously with receiving the first data
stream at the first low noise block converter circuitry;
(c) directing the first and second data streams each along a different
input path to a signal processor having a format decoder;
(d) receiving a channel select input related to a desired channel output
comprising a particular one of the channel outputs in one of the data streams;
Appeal 2014-001668
Reexamination Control No. 90/011,602
Patent US 6,208,636 B1

5

(e) responding to the channel select input by blocking one of the first
data stream or the second data stream which does not include channel data
from which the desired channel output is to be produced; and
(f) storing channel output information for each different channel
output which may be produced from the first data stream and second data
stream, the channel output information for each respective channel output
including signal processing information to control the signal processor in
processing the respective channel data, and signal input information
indicating the input path on which the respective channel data is carried.

REJECTIONS2
A. Claims 2 and 9 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being
anticipated by Eastman (U.S. Patent No. 5,940,737; Aug. 17, 1999).
(FOA 8).
B. Claims 2, 5, 9, 12, 20-32, and 34-36 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §
103(a) as being unpatentable over EP ‘038 (European Patent
Publication No. 0505038 A1; Feb. 21, 1992) in view of Baylin
(FRANK BAYLIN, DIGITAL SATELLITE TV (5th ed. 1997)). (FOA 16).
C. Claims 5, 12, 20-32, and 34-36 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §
103(a) as being unpatentable over Eastman in view of Baylin. (FOA
42).

2 We note the Examiner entered the amendment filed on November 4, 2012,
amending claims 27 and 28 and cancelling claim 33, and withdrew the
rejection of claims 27-36, which were previously rejected under 35 U.S.C. §
112, second paragraph. (See Advisory Action (Jan. 23, 2013)). Therefore,
the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, is not before us on
appeal.
Appeal 2014-001668
Reexamination Control No. 90/011,602
Patent US 6,208,636 B1

6

GROUPING OF CLAIMS
Regarding rejection A, we address the § 102 rejection of dependent
claims 2 and 9 over Eastman, separately infra.
Based on Owner’s arguments, we decide the appeal of the § 103
rejection B of claims 2, 5, 9, 12, 20-32, and 34-36 on the basis of
representative independent claim 20. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv)
(2012).3
Based on Owner’s arguments, we decide the appeal of the § 103
rejection C of claims 5, 12, 20-32, and 34-36 on the basis of representative
independent claim 20.

FINDINGS OF FACT
The following Findings of Fact (FF) are shown by a preponderance of
the evidence:
Eastman
1. Eastman teaches a signal processor connected to
receive data signals from the data stream junction (see,
e.g., column 4, lines 60-62, “The output of the low noise
amplifier-converter 56 is provided to the IRD 18 for
processing in known manners,” and see, e.g., column 1,
lines 25-27, “In a known system the DBS subscriber has
an IRD (integrated receiver-decoder) which is used to
tune a desired channel from the available channels.”).

3 Appellant filed a Notice of Appeal on November 4, 2012. The date of
filing the Notice of Appeal determines which set of rules applies to an ex
parte appeal. If a Notice of Appeal is filed on or after January 23, 2012, then
the 2012 (new) version of the Board Rules (Title 37 of the Code of Federal
Regulations (37 C.F.R. § 41.1 et seq.)) published on November 22, 2011, in
the Federal Register notice applies to the appeal.
Appeal 2014-001668
Reexamination Control No. 90/011,602
Patent US 6,208,636 B1

7

(FOA 12 (emphasis added)).
2. Eastman teaches that the controller controls the
operation of the signal processor to produce the desired
channel output from data signals received from the data
stream junction (see, e.g., column 7, lines 8-22, “The
appropriate one of the pulse patterns to select the signal
characteristic of the chosen channel is supplied (e.g. via
the coax cable) to a pulse counter 46 in the command
decoder of a remote device (e.g. multi-mode LNB, and/or
satellite signal selector). Thus, in accordance with an
aspect of the present invention, by providing control
software effective to toggle the output of the IRD 18 to
produce the appropriate pattern of voltage pulses,
satellite receiving systems . . . are rendered capable of
selecting and receiving television channels having any of
the plurality of signal characteristics.”).
(Id. (emphasis added)).
EP ‘038
3. The passive combiner circuit 40 has two power inputs 42
one for each of the LNB’s. Applying power to the
appropriate one of the power inputs enables signals
received via that LNB to be passed to an output 44 of the
passive combiner circuit 40 which makes them available
to tuning circuits of the satellite receiver. The power is a
DC power signal and in the absence of power to an LNB
no signal can be received from that LNB.
(Col. 3, ll. 47-55).
Baylin
4. Baylin evidences that different satellites at different orbital
positions transmit signals on the same frequency band. (See,
e.g., Table 6-1 (p. 92); Fig. 6-4 (p. 93)).

Appeal 2014-001668
Reexamination Control No. 90/011,602
Patent US 6,208,636 B1

8

ANALYSIS
Anticipation Rejection of Dependent Claims 2 and 9 over Eastman
We observe that Owner urges dependent claims 2 and 9 are allowable
over Eastman based upon limitations recited in associated independent
claims 1 and 8, which were held to be invalid as being anticipated by
Eastman in a final decision in Northpoint Tech., No. 2011-1524. (See App.
Br. 3, 21-22; Ans. 4-5).
However,
where a finding that reference X meets a limitation of a claim
was necessary to the final decision of the Court invalidation of
claim 5, collateral estoppel would attach to the same limitation
in claim 2, which was not invalidated (e.g., because claim 2
contained additional limitations not found in claim 5).
(MPEP § 2659 (8th ed., rev. 9, Aug. 2012) (“Res Judicata and Collateral
Estoppel in Reexamination Proceedings”)).
This guidance is applicable here. Therefore, under the doctrine of
collateral estoppel, we find Owner’s contentions unavailing. Owner
contends “[w]ith regard to claim 2, Eastman clearly does not show the
switching structure and signal feed to a signal processor required by that
claim.” (App. Br. 21). However, the switching structure (first and second
switches) are recited in base claim 1, which the Federal Circuit held to be
invalid, and thus need not be considered again here, under the doctrine of
collateral estoppel. Regarding the signal processor, Owner fails to rebut the
specific findings of the Examiner regarding “(a) a signal processor
connected to receive data signals from the data stream junction.” (See FF1-2;
claim 2; FOA 12).
Likewise, regarding claim 9, Owner contends:
Appeal 2014-001668
Reexamination Control No. 90/011,602
Patent US 6,208,636 B1

9

As to claim 9, it is important to note that the claim
requires that the signal processor is controlled from data in one
of the different data streams, the streams which in the parent
claim (claim 8) are carried on different data paths which are
selected through the claimed switching structure. As the
Appellant notes above, the cited art does not teach such a
structure and does not teach controlling the reception of data
streams through such an arrangement. Considering that these
factual issues were not fully considered in reaching the holding
in the above-described decision regarding the 636 Patent,
Appellant submits that the holding as to parent claim 8 should
not apply against claim 9.
(App. Br. 22).
Under the doctrine of collateral estoppel, we find Owner’s contentions
unavailing regarding the argued limitations (including the switching
structure) that are recited in parent claim 8, which was held to be invalid in a
final decision by the Federal Circuit. See Northpoint Tech., No. 2011-1524.
Regarding the signal processor, Owner fails to rebut the specific findings of
the Examiner: “Eastman teaches a signal processor (see, e.g., column 4, lines
60-62 . . . .” (FOA 15; see also FF 1-2).
Moreover, regarding the functional language recited in the “wherein”
clauses of claims 2 and 9, our reviewing court guides that the patentability of
an apparatus claim “depends on the claimed structure, not on the use or
purpose of that structure.” Catalina Mktg. Int’l, Inc. v. Coolsavings.com,
Inc., 289 F.3d 801, 809 (Fed. Cir. 2002). Here, we conclude the recited
functional language in the “wherein” clauses of claims 2 and 9 does not
further limit the claim to a particular structure.4 Therefore, a question arises

4 See MPEP § 2111.04 (“Claim scope is not limited by claim language that
suggests or makes optional but does not require steps to be performed, or by
Appeal 2014-001668
Reexamination Control No. 90/011,602
Patent US 6,208,636 B1

10

as to how much patentable weight, if any, should be accorded to the
“wherein” clause functional language.
For these reasons, we sustain the Examiner’s anticipation rejection of
claims 2 and 9 over Eastman.
Rejections B and C under § 103
Regarding both § 103 rejections B and C, Owner contends:
the obviousness rejections of claims 2, 5, 9, 12, 20-32, and 34-
36 are in error on the ground that, particularly in view of the
objective evidence of record in the case, there is no apparent
reason to combine either EP ‘038 or Eastman with Baylin to
arrive at the subject matter of the claims. Furthermore, the
proposed combinations fail to include all of the limitations set
out in some of the rejected claims.
(App. Br. 8-9).
Combinability of the References – Secondary Considerations
Owner contends, inter alia:
Contrary to [the Examiner’s findings], the objective
evidence of record in this case does not show that the local-
into-local services are independent of the satellite receiver and
how the satellite services are received. In particular, the
declaration of Saleem Tawil submitted with the response filed
November 22, 2011 (the “First Declaration”) described how
capacity limited DirecTV’s ability to provide local-into-local
service. The First Declaration then set out that the invention
(that is, the method of receiving multiple data streams sharing
carrier frequencies as set out in the present claims) allowed
DirecTV to overcome this limitation for a vast majority of the

claim language that does not limit a claim to a particular structure. However,
examples of claim language, although not exhaustive, that may raise a
question as to the limiting effect of the language in a claim are: (A) ‘adapted
to’ or ‘adapted for’ clauses; (B) ‘wherein’ clauses; and (C) ‘whereby’
clauses.” (emphasis added)).
Appeal 2014-001668
Reexamination Control No. 90/011,602
Patent US 6,208,636 B1

11

markets. (First Declaration at paragraphs 14, 16, 21, and
generally 15-23).
(App. Br. 9-10).

Commercial Success
Issue: Did Owner provide sufficient evidence of commercial
success to rebut the prima facie case of obviousness?

At the outset, we observe that Owner has not complied with our rules,
which require copies of Declaration evidence to be submitted in an Evidence
Appendix.5 The Appeal Brief filed January 4, 2013, does not include an
Evidence Appendix. However, because the Declaration evidence was
entered into the record and considered by the Examiner, we consider it for
purposes of this appeal.

Legal Principles
To overcome a finding of obviousness by demonstrating commercial
success, there must be a nexus between commercial success and the claimed
features. Ormco Corp. v. Align Tech., Inc., 463 F.3d 1299, 1312 (Fed. Cir.

5 See 37 C.F.R. § 41.67(c)(1)(ix) (“Evidence appendix. An appendix
containing copies of any evidence submitted pursuant to §§ 1.130, 1.131, or
1.132 of this title or of any other evidence entered by the examiner and
relied upon by appellant in the appeal, along with a statement setting forth
where in the record that evidence was entered in the record by the examiner.
Reference to unentered evidence is not permitted in the brief. See § 41.63 for
treatment of evidence submitted after appeal. This appendix may also
include copies of the evidence relied upon by the examiner in any ground of
rejection to be reviewed on appeal.”); see also MPEP, Appx. R (“Patent
Rules”).
Appeal 2014-001668
Reexamination Control No. 90/011,602
Patent US 6,208,636 B1

12

2006). “[T]he asserted commercial success of the product must be due to the
merits of the claimed invention beyond what was readily available in the
prior art.” J.T. Eaton & Co. v. Atl. Paste & Glue Co., 106 F.3d 1563, 1571
(Fed. Cir. 1997). “[I]f the commercial success is due to an unclaimed feature
of the device, the commercial success is irrelevant. So too if the feature that
creates the commercial success was known in the prior art, the success is not
pertinent.” Ormco Corp., 463 F.3d at 1312 (footnotes omitted).
This reasoning is applicable here. In particular, we find Owner has
not shown a nexus between the proffered evidence of commercial success
and specific claimed features. Therefore, we agree with and adopt the
Examiner’s findings, which we find are supported by the preponderance of
evidence of record:
As set forth in the Office action, the evidence presented in the
first declaration suggests that DirecTV’s commercial success is
due to DirecTV’s services (i.e., the local, HD, sports and other
channels), rather than to the [claimed] mechanism for receiving
those services. The evidence does not show that users of
DirecTV subscribed to DirecTV’s services because of the
reception mechanism or because the mechanism was capable of
receiving multiple data streams at the same frequency.
Moreover, while the evidence presented in the first declaration
shows DirecTV’s revenue and subscriber numbers, none of the
evidence relates or compares these figures to the rest of the
market. In other words, the evidence does not compare
DirecTV’s revenue and subscriber numbers to those of other
satellite, cable and broadcast television providers so as
demonstrate DirecTV’s actual success in the market.
(Ans. 4, emphasis added).
We also observe that the November 22, 2011, first Rule 1.132
Declaration by inventor Saleem Tawil is directed to claims 7, 14, and 18,
Appeal 2014-001668
Reexamination Control No. 90/011,602
Patent US 6,208,636 B1

13

which are not before us on appeal. (See Declaration by Saleem Tawil 21
(Nov. 22, 2011)). Even though there was no finding of infringement in the
related DirecTV litigation, we note that both the first Rule 1.132 Declaration
(filed Nov. 22, 2011, by Saleem Tawil) and the second Rule 1.132
Declaration (filed Nov. 4, 2012, by Saleem Tawil) reference commercial use
by DirecTV, as pointed out by the Examiner:
The examiner also notes that DirecTV is not the owner of
the ‘636 patent; the mapping of the claims to DirecTV’s
systems in the first and second declarations is presented as
evidence of copying. However, there was no finding of
infringement in the related DirecTV litigation. Instead, as noted
in the Office action, claims 1, 7, 8, 14-16, 18 and 19 of the ‘636
patent were held invalid by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Federal Circuit, affirming a lower court decision that the claims
are anticipated by Eastman. See Northpoint Technology, Ltd. v.
DirecTV, Inc., No. 2011-1524 (Fed. Cir. 2012).
(Ans. 4-5).
Our reviewing court guides that “as we have often held, evidence of
secondary considerations does not always overcome a strong prima facie
showing of obviousness.” Asyst Techs., Inc. v. Emtrak, Inc., 544 F.3d 1310,
1316 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (affirming judgment as a matter of law of
obviousness). Here, on this record, even if arguendo there is some indicia
of commercial success, we are of the view it does not overcome the
Examiner’s strong prima facie showing of obviousness, as discussed further
infra.
Therefore, for the same reasons articulated by the Examiner which we
agree with and adopt (Ans. 3-6), we do not find Owner’s contentions
regarding secondary consideration persuasive, including the discussion of
criticism and skepticism of the experts. (App. Br. 11-13).
Appeal 2014-001668
Reexamination Control No. 90/011,602
Patent US 6,208,636 B1

14

Contested Limitations under § 103
We disagree with Owner’s contentions regarding the Examiner’s
obviousness rejections of the claims. We adopt as our own: (1) the findings
and reasons set forth by the Examiner in the FOA from which this appeal is
taken, and (2) the reasons set forth by the Examiner in the Answer in
response to arguments made in Owner’s Appeal Brief. (Ans. 3-14). We
highlight and address specific findings and arguments below:

The Combination of EP ‘038 and Baylin
(1) Representative claim 20 stands rejected over the combined
teachings and suggestions of EP ‘038 and Baylin. Owner replicates the
Examiner’s statement of rejection from the FOA on pages 14-16 of the
Appeal Brief and advances various arguments. (App. Br. 16-19). We limit
our discussion to specific claim limitations in representative claim 20
actually contested by Owner.
Owner contends, inter alia:
nothing in Baylin suggests configuring each LNB 38 in EP ‘038
to receive signals on carrier frequencies having the same RF
frequency. Furthermore, even if one were to configure each
LNB 38 in EP ‘038 to receive the same C-band carrier
frequency as proposed, the resulting configuration would still
not meet the limitation at element (b) of claim 20 that the
second data stream is received at the second low noise block
converter circuitry simultaneously with receiving the first data
stream at the first low noise block converter circuitry. As noted
above, EP ‘038 only powers on one LNB 38 at a time and thus
there is no second LNB 38 simultaneously receiving a second
data stream on any frequency, let alone the same frequency
received at the powered LNB 38.
(App. Br. 17 (first & last emphases added)).
Appeal 2014-001668
Reexamination Control No. 90/011,602
Patent US 6,208,636 B1

15

Issue: Under § 103, did the Examiner err in finding the
combination of EP ‘038 and Baylin would have taught or suggested the
following contested limitations: “at least one of the second carrier
frequencies having the same RF frequency as one of the first carrier
frequencies, the second data stream being received at the second low noise
block converter circuitry simultaneously with receiving the first data stream
at the first low noise block converter circuitry,” within the meaning of
representative claim 20 (emphasis added)?
Regarding the “same RF frequency” limitation (claim 20), Owner fails
to rebut the Examiner’s specific findings, which are based on the
combination of EP ‘038 and Baylin. (See Ans. 6 (“The Examiner . . . notes
that the rejections of the claims specifying that the first and second data
streams include ‘the same RF frequency’ are based on a combination of EP
‘038 and Baylin, and not on EP ‘038 alone.”)). We agree with the Examiner
that Baylin teaches or suggests that different satellites at different orbital
positions transmit signals on the same frequency band. (See, e.g., Baylin,
Table 6-1 (p. 92); Fig. 6-4 (p. 93); FF 4).
Regarding the limitation of the “second data stream being received at
the second low noise block converter circuitry simultaneously with receiving
the first data stream at the first low noise block converter circuitry” (claim
20 (emphasis added)), we agree with the Examiner’s finding that in EP ‘038
“[t]he signals are received at the first and second LNBs 38 simultaneously,
and then the signals from one of the two LNBs are output to the satellite
receiver based on the state of the power inputs 42.” (Ans. 7; see FF 3). We
Appeal 2014-001668
Reexamination Control No. 90/011,602
Patent US 6,208,636 B1

16

also observe that independent claim 28 is silent regarding the contested
“simultaneously” receiving limitation.
For these reasons, on this record, we are not persuaded the Examiner
erred. Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of representative claim 20 over
the combined teachings and suggestions of EP ‘038 and Baylin. Grouped
claims 2, 5, 9, 12, 21-32, and 34-36 (not argued separately) fall therewith.

The Combination of Eastman and Baylin
(2) Representative claim 20 also stands rejected over the combined
teachings and suggestions of Eastman and Baylin. We limit our discussion to
specific claim limitations in representative claim 20 actually contested by
Owner.
Owner replicates the Examiner’s statement of rejection from the FOA
on pages 19 and 20 of the Appeal Brief and contends that “neither Eastman
nor Baylin disclose or suggest receiving two digital data streams from
different locations/directions at the same RF frequency.” Owner further
contends:
the differently polarized signals apparently at the same RF
frequency in Eastman are from the same satellite 10 or 12.
(Eastman at col. 2, lines 50-53.) The cited portions of Baylin at
Excerpts II and III, merely disclose that two data streams at a
given RF frequency may be transmitted from a given satellite at
different polarizations, and does not disclose or suggest
receiving two data streams at a common RF frequency from
different locations/directions as required in present claims 20
and 28.
(App. Br. 20-21).
Appeal 2014-001668
Reexamination Control No. 90/011,602
Patent US 6,208,636 B1

17

Issue: Under § 103, did the Examiner err in finding the
combination of Eastman and Baylin would have taught or suggested the
following contested limitations:
receiving a second data stream transmitted from a second radio
source located in a second direction from the reception location,
different from the first direction, the second data stream
including multiple second carrier frequencies carrying channel
data for producing respective channel outputs, at least one of
the second carrier frequencies having the same RF frequency as
one of the first carrier frequencies,
within the meaning of representative claim 20 (emphases added)?
As discussed above (regarding the combination of EP ‘038 and
Baylin), we agree with the Examiner that Baylin evidences that different
satellites at different orbital positions transmit signals on the same frequency
band, this at least suggesting the contested “same RF frequency” limitation.
(See, e.g., Baylin, Table 6-1 (p. 92); Fig. 6-4 (p. 93); FF 4).
Regarding the contested directional limitations, we agree with the
Examiner’s findings regarding the combined teachings and suggestions of
Eastman and Baylin:
Eastman teaches that the first and second data streams are
received from satellites (i.e., “radio sources”) located in
different directions from the reception location (see, e.g.,
column 2, lines 50-53, “The embodiment illustrated and
discussed below includes two satellites in different orbital
locations, each transmitting groups of signals having RHCP and
LHCP.”). And, as noted above, the teachings of Baylin cited in
the Office action are evidence that different satellites in
different orbital locations transmit groups of signals on the
same frequency band (i.e., first and second data streams that
include “at least one RF frequency in common”) (see, e.g., page
92, Table 6-1, and see, e.g., page 93, Figure 6-4).
Appeal 2014-001668
Reexamination Control No. 90/011,602
Patent US 6,208,636 B1

18

(Ans. 9-10).
We further agree with and adopt the Examiner’s findings and
responsive arguments as articulated on pages 9-13 of the Answer. On this
record, we are not persuaded of error regarding the Examiner’s underlying
factual findings and ultimate legal conclusion of obviousness for § 103
rejections B and C.
Accordingly, we also sustain the § 103 rejection of representative
claim 20 over the combined teachings and suggestions of Eastman and
Baylin. Grouped claims 5, 12, 21-32, and 34-36 (not argued separately) fall
therewith.

DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 2 and 9 under
§ 102.
We affirm the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 2, 5, 9, 12, 20-32,
and 34-36 under § 103.
Requests for extensions of time in this proceeding are governed by 37
C.F.R. §§ 1.956 and 41.79(e).

AFFIRMED

Appeal 2014-001668
Reexamination Control No. 90/011,602
Patent US 6,208,636 B1

19

Patent Owner:
THE CULBERTSON GROUP, P.C.
3355 BEE CAVE ROAD, SUITE 604
AUSTIN, TX 78746

Third Party Requester:
MORRISON & FOERSTER, LLP
707 WILSHIRE BOULEVARD
LOS ANGELES, CA 90017

bab