Ex Parte Barroso

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 12, 2014

11853758 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 12, 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.
11/853,758 09/11/2007 Eduardo Barroso PD-207079 3596
20991 7590 12/12/2014
THE DIRECTV GROUP, INC.
PATENT DOCKET ADMINISTRATION
CA / LA1 / A109
2230 E. IMPERIAL HIGHWAY
EL SEGUNDO, CA 90245
EXAMINER
TRAN, PAUL P
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2649
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/12/2014 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 EDUARDO BARROSO
1

____________________

Appeal 2012-002039
Application 11/853,758
Technology Center 2600
____________________

Before CARLA M. KRIVAK, JEFFREY S. SMITH, and
ROBERT L. KINDER, Administrative Patent Judges.

KINDER, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant seeks our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the
Examiner’s Final Rejection of claims 1–20. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.

1
According to Appellant, the real party in interest is DIRECTTV Group,
Inc. App. Br. 2.
Appeal 2012-002039
Application 11/853,758

2

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant’s Invention
Appellant’s invention relates generally to communication systems,
and more particularly to a method and apparatus for monitoring and
displaying various portions of a signal path. Spec. ¶ 1. The method and
apparatus for monitoring may include a first receiver decoder circuit for a
first channel coupled to a transfer switch. Spec. Abstract; Fig. 3A. The first
receiver decoder circuit generates a first receiver decoder circuit signal. Id.
A second receiver decoder circuit for the first channel may also be coupled
to the transfer switch. The second receiver decoder circuit generates a
second receiver decoder circuit signal. Id. Both signals may be output to a
monitoring display. Id.

Claims on Appeal
Claims 1–20 are the claims on appeal. Appellant argues for the
separate patentability of several claims on appeal. We therefore address
claims in separate groupings. Claim 1, however, is illustrative of the
claimed subject matter and set forth below. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii)
(2011).
1. A method comprising:

generating a first receiver decoder circuit signal at a first
receiver decoder circuit for a first channel;

communicating the first receiver decoder circuit signal to
a first transfer switch;

generating a second receiver decoder circuit signal at a
second receiver decoder circuit for the first channel;
Appeal 2012-002039
Application 11/853,758

3

communicating the second receiver decoder circuit signal
to the first transfer switch; and

generating a monitoring display formed in response to,
and displaying, the first receiver decoder circuit signal and the
second receiver decoder circuit signal.

Evidence Considered
Fujiwara et al. US 6,512,794 B1 Jan. 28, 2003
(hereinafter “Fujiwara”)
Suh US 2006/0120327 A1 June 8, 2006
Liang et al. US 7,315,887 B1 Jan. 1, 2008
(hereinafter “Liang”)
Demas et al. US 2010/0020887 A1 Jan. 28, 2010
(hereinafter “Demas”)

Examiner’s Rejections
Appellant seeks review of the following rejections:
I. Claims 1 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
anticipated by Fujiwara.
II. Claims 2 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Fujiwara and Liang.
III. Claims 3, 5, 6, 13, 15, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Fujiwara and Demas.
IV. Claims 4, 7–10, 14, and 17–20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Fujiwara, Demas, and Suh.

Appeal 2012-002039
Application 11/853,758

4

ANALYSIS
I. Claims 1 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
anticipated by Fujiwara.
Appellant alleges that Fujiwara fails to disclose the claim 1
requirements of “generating a first receiver decoder circuit signal at a first
receiver decoder circuit for a first channel” and “generating a second
receiver decoder circuit signal at a second receiver decoder circuit for the
first channel.” App. Br. 4 (quoting claim 1). Appellant argues Fujiwara’s
SDI decoder (3) and SDTI decoder (7) each receive a different input signal,
and thereafter generate a different output signal to a selection switch (9).
App. Br. 5 (citing Fujiwara col. 8, ll. 17–29). Appellant then contrasts
Fujiwara with the limitations of claim 1 alleging each of the generated
signals in claim 1 must be “for a ‘first channel,’” meaning “each of the first
and second receiver decoder circuits generates a signal based on and for the
same first channel signal.” Id. In essence, Appellant argues the claims only
cover switching between a primary and back-up signal for the same
television channel. Further, Appellant points out that “channel” should be
interpreted consistent with the Specification “to refer to television channels.”
Reply Br. 2. Appellant again distinguishes Fujiwara by pointing out “the
disclosed SDI decoder and SDTI decoder do not output the same channel as
is provided for by these claims.” Reply Br. 3. In Fujiwara, “the
‘distinguishing circuit 10’ controls the ‘selection switch 9’ to select either
the SDI or SDTI output based on the format of the input signal.” Id.
(quoting Fujiwara, col. 8, ll. 29–37).
The Examiner responds by first interpreting “a first channel” to mean
“a common channel, which is inherent in any RF transmission/reception of a
Appeal 2012-002039
Application 11/853,758

5

telecommunication system.” Ans. 11. The Examiner finds Fujiwara’s
teaching of “[t]he receiving circuit 2 includes and [sic] SDI decoder 3 and a
second SDTI decoder 7 coupled to the output of the receiving circuit 2 via a
single input line and to a selection switch 9, i.e. transfer switch, for selecting
the input signal via the control of a receiving control unit 11,” discloses the
disputed limitations of claim 1. Ans. 11–12. The Examiner finds that
Appellant’s arguments are not commensurate with the scope of the claims
because “switching between a primary and back-up signal” is not recited in
claim 1. Ans. 12. Finally, the Examiner finds Fujiwara discloses a single
input signal from the common input terminal 1, thus, “the input signal fed
into each of the decoders must be the same,” because “they share the same
incoming signal line.” Id.
We accord the claims their broadest reasonable interpretation
consistent with the Specification. In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech Ctr., 367
F.3d 1359, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2004). However, limitations appearing in the
Specification are not to be read into the claims. See In re Zletz, 893 F.2d
319, 321–22 (Fed. Cir. 1989). We find Appellant’s arguments are not
commensurate with the scope of the claim language and Appellant attempts
to read preferred embodiments into the claims.
The method of claim 1 recites “generating a first receiver decoder
circuit signal at a first receiver decoder circuit for a first channel,” and a
second receiver decoder circuit signal similarly generated “for the first
channel.” Claim 1. First, Appellant has chosen to claim the generated
output signals as two distinct signals, “first” and “second” signals generated
from the respective “first” and “second” “receiver decoder circuit[s].”
Nothing in the claim requires these signals to be the same or that they
Appeal 2012-002039
Application 11/853,758

6

transmit any particular content from a television channel. According to the
claim language, the first and second signal must simply be “for the first
channel.” Claim 1. The Specification has no requirement for specific signal
form or content. See, e.g., Spec. ¶ 57 (“The output of the decoder is a
baseband signal that may be in a variety of formats such as a high definition
serial digital interface (HD-SDI) format.”). The Specification goes on to
describe several signals and outputs generated by the receiver decoder
circuits. See, e.g., Spec. ¶¶ 55–61. The claim language likewise does not
require the signal to be any specific type of signal “for the channel,” nor
does the claim language require the two signals to be the same output of the
same channel as Appellant argues. See Reply Br. 3 (“do not output the same
channel as is provided for by these claims”).
Based on this understanding of claim scope, we agree with the
Examiner that Fujiwara discloses “generating a first receiver decoder circuit
signal at a first receiver decoder circuit for a first channel” and “generating a
second receiver decoder circuit signal at a second receiver decoder circuit
for the first channel.” Claim 1. Fujiwara discloses an SDI decoder (3) that
is the first receiver decoder circuit and an SDTI decoder (7) that is the
second receiver decoder circuit. See, e.g., Fig. 3. Each produces an output
signal “for the channel” that is communicated to the selection switch (9)
representing the claimed “first transfer switch.” We agree with the
Examiner that Fujiwara’s receiving circuit carries out a serial-parallel
conversion to process digital data from a common receiving input signal
(common input terminal (1)) containing two different standards split for
decoding and combined for transmitting as a single signal to a displaying
device. Ans. 12; Fujiwara, col. 8, ll. 48–55. While the SDI and SDTI
Appeal 2012-002039
Application 11/853,758

7

decoders may process different parts of the digital data signal, both output a
receiver decoder circuit signal “for the channel” such that the signals
together are combined for transmitting. See Fujiwara, col. 8, ll. 23–63
(“SDTI decoder 7 . . . used to process digital data including video data
compressed” and “SDI decoder 3 separate uncompressed video data and
audio data”). We therefore conclude Appellant has failed to show the
Examiner erred and we affirm the Examiner’s rejections of claims 1 and 11
as anticipated by Fujiwara under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b). See App. Br. 6
(grouping claim 11 with claim 1).

II. Claims 2 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Fujiwara and Liang.
Appellant challenges the Examiner’s findings that Fujiwara and Liang
fail to teach or suggest the limitations of claim 2 requiring “generating an
on-line view on the monitoring display in response to the first receiver
decoder circuit signal” and “generating an offline view from the second
receiver decoder circuit signal.” Claim 2. Appellant argues that the claim
language requires the concurrent generation of both an “on-line view” output
to the monitoring display (see, e.g., Appellant’s Spec. Fig. 3A, monitoring
system 186) as well as an “off-line view.” App. Br. 7. Appellant alleges an
“on-line view” is a signal that is currently being broadcast and “an offline
view” is a signal that is not currently being broadcast. Id. Appellant then
contrasts the teachings of Liang because the reference is directed to a
physical asset management system that provides for the management of
installed and not-installed equipment inventory. Id. Appellant concludes by
arguing while Liang may use identical language – “online” and “off-line”
Appeal 2012-002039
Application 11/853,758

8

(col. 3, ll. 44–52) this language does not teach or suggest the limitations of
claim 2. App. Br. 7.
The Examiner responds by noting Appellant attempts to improperly
import limitations into the claims “(i.e. ‘online view’ refers to signal
currently being broadcast and ‘offline view’ refers to signal not currently
being broadcast).” Ans. 14. The Examiner reasons “[s]ince Liang [sic]
“online view” and “offline view” is within the common knowledge of the
regular skilled person in the art and the interpretation of the above
limitations is within the broadest reasonable interpretation” the rejection of
claim 2 is maintained. Id.
The terms “online view” and “offline view” are not defined in
the Specification. Appellant cites to a portion of the Specification
mentioning “on-line,” and Appellant contends this provides a specific
meaning for these terms. We find the cited portion of the Specification does
not set forth with any particularity the scope of “on-line view.” See Spec. ¶
128 (“Thus, the second encoder is used during the monitoring process with
the same signal stream currently broadcasting or ‘on-line.’”). In
telecommunications, the term “online” may indicate a state of connectivity,
2

while “offline” indicates a disconnected state.
3
Liang teaches such a display
for the online assets and also the generation of an offline view for the offline
assets. See, e.g., Liang col. 2, ll. 59–67 (“The physical asset management
system 105 includes a physical asset server 120 having a PAM graphical

2
Defining “online” as: “Turned on and connected.” Webopedia.com,
available at: http://www.webopedia.com/TERM/O/online.html.

3
Defining “offline” as: “Not connected.” Webopedia.com, available at:
http://www.webopedia.com/TERM/O/offline.html.
Appeal 2012-002039
Application 11/853,758

9

user interface (GUI) client 125, an off-line asset inventory database 130, a
network resource inventory server 135 and an on-line persistent asset
database 140 connected thereto.”). Accordingly, we agree with the
Examiner that the disclosure of Liang teaches or suggests generating an
online and offline view under the broadest reasonable interpretation of these
terms. See Liang, col. 3, ll. 44–67 (“physical asset management includes
managing both on-line and off-line asset items”). Further, the generated on-
line and offline view data has no impact on any subsequent steps or
structural limitations recited in the method of claim 2. The claim recites
generating the “on-line view” in response to the first receiver decoder signal,
but does not otherwise define what data, or “on-line view,” is displayed “on
the monitoring display,” or how the displayed “on-line view” data affects
any subsequent steps or structural limitations recited in claim 2. Similarly,
claim 2 does not distinguish generating the offline view from generated data,
other than by giving the label “offline view” to the generated data. The
broadest reasonable interpretation of claim 2, when read in light of
Appellant’s Specification, encompasses “generating [data] on the monitoring
display in response to the first receiver decoder circuit signal and generating
[data] from the second receiver decoder signal.” Therefore, the non-
functional descriptive labels “on-line view” and “offline view” recited in
claim 2 do not distinguish the claim from the prior art in terms of
patentability. See In re Ngai, 367 F.3d 1336, 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Cf. In
re Gulack, 703 F.2d 1381, 1385 (Fed. Cir. 1983). See also Ex parte Nehls,
88 USPQ2d 1883, 1887–90 (BPAI 2008) (precedential).
Appeal 2012-002039
Application 11/853,758

10

We therefore conclude Appellant has failed to show the Examiner
erred and we affirm the Examiner’s rejections of claims 2 and 12 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a). See App. Br. 7 (grouping claim 12 with claim 2).
III. Claims 3, 5, 6, 13, 15, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §
103(a) as unpatentable over Fujiwara and Demas.
Claim 3 recites “displaying the first receiver decoder circuit signal and
the second receiver decoder circuit signal simultaneously on the monitoring
display.” Claim 3. Appellant alleges the combined prior art fails to teach or
disclose this limitation. Appellant’s argument mirrors the argument made
for claim 1 that output of “the same channel” must be displayed. App. Br. 8;
Reply Br. 4–5. For the reasons set forth above for claim 1, we disagree with
Appellant’s contentions.
The output signals of Fujiwara, at least one of audio and video signals,
are simultaneously displayed on the monitor via the reproducing processing
circuit. See Fig. 3. Similarly, Demas discloses the same signal being split
for decoding and then combined for simultaneously display on monitors.
See Demas, Fig. 4, ¶ 56. As such, we find no error in the Examiner’s
findings with respect to claim 3. See Ans. 7, 14–15. We affirm the rejection
of claim 13 for the same reasons. App. Br. 10 (grouping claim 13 with
claim 3).
Appellant separately challenges the Examiner’s finding that Fujiwara
and Demas teach or suggest the limitations of dependent claim 5. App. Br.
10–11; Reply Br. 5–6. Claim 5 recites “generating an IRD signal for the
first channel at an integrated receiver decoder and displaying the IRD signal
at the monitoring display.” Claim 5. According to the Specification, IRD is
“an integrated receiver decoder.” Spec. ¶ 47. Appellant argues Fujiwara
Appeal 2012-002039
Application 11/853,758

11

and Demas fail to teach the limitations related to generating and displaying
an IRD signal. App. Br. 9. Appellant argues Demas “contemplates the
display of only actual broadcast signals.” Id. (citing Demas ¶ 56).
Appellant contends both the first and second receiver decoder circuit signals
“are pre-broadcast signals, while the ‘IRD signal’ is a broadcast signal.”
App. Br. 9–10. Demas, according to Appellant, “contemplates the display of
only actual broadcast signals.” Reply Br. 5. Thus, Appellant concludes
Demas is absent any teaching or suggestion relating to the display of both
broadcast and pre-broadcast signals. Id.
The Examiner responds by first noting the features upon which
Appellant relies (i.e., IRD signal is a broadcast signal) are not recited in
claim 5. Ans. 16. The Examiner finds Demas discloses an IRD signal
including decoders for decoding multiple satellite signals for display on a
single or multiple monitors. Id.
We agree with the Examiner. The combination of Fujiwara and
Demas teaches or suggests the claimed generation and display of an IRD
signal. Neither the claims nor the Specification distinguish between pre-
broadcast signals and broadcast signals. As noted in the analysis with
respect to claim 1, the claim language, “[first/second] receiver decoder
circuit signal,” does not require any specific type of output signal as
Appellant alleges, nor does the Specification limit these signals to pre-
broadcast signals. Likewise, the Specification is silent as to the claimed IRD
signal being limited to only a broadcast signal (Reply Br. 6). See Spec. ¶ 87
(IRD “is used for receiving the signals from the satellite to monitor the
quality of a downlink channel signal.”).
Appeal 2012-002039
Application 11/853,758

12

Demas teaches generating and displaying an IRD signal. See, e.g.,
Demas, ¶ 54 (“a single integrated system includes multiple digital receivers .
. . an MPEG audio-video decoder for decoding multiple transport streams, a
microprocessor, an interface to an external memory . . . and integrated
display controllers for displaying the decoded audio and video on multiple
independent monitors”) and ¶¶ 56, 65. Even adopting Appellant’s
construction of the IRD signal as limited to a broadcast signal, Demas also
teaches generation and display of a broadcast signal. Id. See also Demas, ¶
3 (“a receiver for processing incoming multimedia programming”). Thus,
we find no error in the Examiner’s conclusion that Fujiwara and Demas
teach or suggest the limitations of claim 5. Because Appellant groups claims
6–8 and 15–17 with claim 5, we likewise affirm the Examiner’s obviousness
rejection of those claims. See App. Br. 10–11.
We therefore conclude Appellant has failed to show the Examiner
erred and we affirm the Examiner’s rejections of claims 3, 5, 6, 13, 15, and
16 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).

IV. Claims 4, 7–10, 14, and 17–20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Fujiwara, Demas and Suh.

Appellant groups claims 4, 9, 10, 14, and 18–20 with claims 1 and 11.
See App. Br. 10–11. We therefore affirm the rejections of those claims for
the reasons set forth for claim 1.
Appellant groups claims 7, 8, and 16 with claim 5. See App. Br. 10–
11. We therefore affirm the rejections of those claims for the reasons set
forth for claim 5.
Appeal 2012-002039
Application 11/853,758

13

CONCLUSION
We find the Examiner has not erred in rejecting claims 1 and 11
pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Fujiwara.
We find the Examiner has not erred in rejecting claims 2 and 12
pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Fujiwara and Liang.
We find the Examiner has not erred in rejecting claims 3, 5, 6, 13, 15,
and 16 pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Fujiwara and
Demas.
We find the Examiner has not erred in rejecting claims 4, 7–10, 14,
and 17–20 pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Fujiwara,
Demas and Suh.

DECISION
As such, we AFFIRM the Examiner’s Final Rejection of claims 1–20.
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).

AFFIRMED

kis