Ex Parte Brooks

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 7, 2016

12789961 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 7, 2016)

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.
TWC 10-08/1033-36 9618
EXAMINER
WYLLIE, CHRISTOPHER T
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2465
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/789,961 05/28/2010
98417 7590 12/08/2016
Otterstedt, Ellenbogen & Kammer, LLP
P.O. Box 381
Cos Cob, CT 06807-0381
Paul D. Brooks
12/08/2016 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 PAUL D. BROOKS
Appeal 2015-006452
Application 12/789,961
Technology Center 2400
Before CAROLYN D. THOMAS, JEFFREY S. SMITH, and
TERRENCE W. McMILLIN, Administrative Patent Judges.
SMITH, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal 2015-006452
Application 12/789,961
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the rejection of
claims 1—26 and 28. Claim 27 has been canceled, and claim 29 has been
allowed. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
1. A method for providing enhanced broadband services
over a communications network, the method comprising the steps of:
receiving from the communications network at least first
signals in a first downstream frequency band having a first minimum
frequency defining at least a portion of a first upstream/downstream
split point;
translating one or more of the first signals from the first
downstream frequency band to one or more translated first signals in a
second downstream frequency band having a second minimum
frequency less than the first minimum frequency, the first and second
downstream frequency bands being non-overlapping; and
combining the one or more translated first signals in the second
downstream frequency band with one or more of the first signals in
the first downstream frequency band to generate combined
programming material having the second minimum frequency
defining at least a portion of a second upstream/downstream split
point for reception by receiving location equipment.
Representative Claim
Prior Art
Helms US 2005/0125841 A1
US 5,432,838
June 9, 2005
July 11, 1995
July 14, 2005
June 25, 2009
Mar. 11, 1997
June 6, 2002
Purchase
Weinstein
McMullin
Kostreski
Kliger
US 2005/0155082 A1
US 2009/0165070 A1
US 5,610,916
US 2002/0069417 A1
2
Appeal 2015-006452
Application 12/789,961
Examiner’s Rejections
Claims 1—3, 7, 13, 14, 16—18, 23, and 28 stand rejected1 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Helms and Purchase.
Claims 4, 9, and 11 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Helms, Purchase, and Weinstein.
Claims 5, 6, 15, and 24 stand rejected2 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Helms, Purchase, and McMullin.
Claims 8, 12, 15, 20, 21, 25, and 26 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Helms, Purchase, and as well known in
the art.
Claim 10 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Helms, Purchase, and Kostreski.
Claim 22 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Helms, Purchase, as well known in the art, and Kliger.
Claim 19 stands objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base
claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all
of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
ANALYSIS
We adopt the findings of fact made by the Examiner in the Final
Rejection and Examiner’s Answer as our own. We concur with the
conclusions reached by the Examiner for the reasons given in the
Examiner’s Answer. We address the following points for emphasis.
1 The statement of rejection on page 2 of the Final Action does not list claim
7, but the Final Action addresses claim 7 on pages 5 and 6.
2 The statement of rejection on page 10 of the Final Action does not list
claim 24, but the Final Action addresses claim 24 on page 12.
3
Appeal 2015-006452
Application 12/789,961
Appellant contends that according to the present invention, split
migration involves moving the upstream/downstream split point. Reply Br.
9. However, claim 1 does not recite split migration, nor moving the
upstream/downstream split point. See Ans. 4. Appellant’s contention is not
commensurate with the scope of claim 1.
Appellant contends that the Examiner does not explain how the prior
art frequency translation teaches “defining at least a portion of a second
upstream/downstream split point.” Reply Br. 10. According to Appellant,
frequency translating from one frequency band to another frequency band,
without more, has no bearing on a split point. Id. Claim 1 recites the
“portion of a second upstream/downstream split point” is defined by
combining one or more translated first signals in the second minimum
frequency band with one or more first signals in the first frequency band.
Claim 1 does not require “defining at least a portion of a second
upstream/downstream split point” to be anything more than combining a
signal translated to a lower frequency band with a signal in the untranslated
higher frequency band.
Here, the Examiner relies on Figure 5 and paragraphs 39—41 of Helms
to teach translating a signal from frequency band 489 to a higher frequency
band 378, and combining the translated signal with the original signal. Ans.
5. Although Helms teaches translating to a higher, rather than lower,
frequency band, the Examiner relies on Purchase to teach translating from a
higher frequency to a lower frequency was within the level of ordinary skill.
Ans. 6. Appellant does not persuasively rebut the Examiner’s findings.
4
Appeal 2015-006452
Application 12/789,961
Appellant contends that Helms does not teach moving a defined
portion of the downstream frequency band. ReplyBr.il. Appellant’s
contention is inconsistent with Figure 5 and paragraphs 39-43 of Helms.
Appellant contends that Purchase is not concerned with defining split
points. Reply Br. 11. According to Appellant, Purchase’s teaching of
translating a signal in a band of 210-216 MHz to a band of 150-156 MHz is
completely contained in the downstream frequencies and above the upstream
frequencies. Id. Appellant’s contention is inconsistent with column 8, lines
15-17 of Purchase, which teach an inbound spectrum of 5-186 MHz, and an
outbound spectrum of 222-450 MHz. Appellant’s contention is also
inconsistent with column 15, lines 32-34 of Purchase, which teach that
frequency use is not restricted to inbound or outbound.
Appellant contends the claim term “upstream/downstream split point”
means that a downstream radio frequency signal is above a frequency, such
as 105 MHz, and an upstream signal is below a frequency, such as 85 MHz.
Reply Br. 12, 13. According to Appellant, one edge of a frequency band is
not a split point. Reply Br. 13. Appellant’s contention is inconsistent with
Appellant’s Specification.
Appellant’s Specification discloses that the band of frequencies
between the maximum upstream range and the minimum downstream range
may be referred to as the crossover point. Spec. 9:28—30. Appellant’s
Specification gives an example of moving a maximum upstream frequency
from 42 to 200 MHz, and moving a minimum downstream frequency range
from 54 to 258 MHz. Spec. 13:7—19. A frequency band of downstream
signals is translated from 258-454 MHz to 54-258 MHz, and combined with
signals having a frequency greater than 258 MHz. Spec. 15:10-21; Fig. 3A.
5
Appeal 2015-006452
Application 12/789,961
In this example from Appellant’s Specification, the translated
downstream signals are within the upstream frequency band, and there is no
band of frequencies between the maximum upstream range and the
minimum downstream range. Appellant’s contention that one edge of a
frequency band does not define a portion of a second split point is
inconsistent with Appellant’s Specification. The scope of “defining a
portion of a second upstream/downstream split point,” when read in light of
Appellant’s Specification, encompasses changing an edge of either the
upstream or downstream frequency band, without necessarily having a band
of frequencies between the upstream and downstream bands. See App. Br. 4
(citing Spec. 15:10-20 and Fig. 3A).
Further, as noted by Appellant, Purchase discloses a split point. See
Reply Br. 13. Helms teaches changing the frequency edge of the received
composite signal, or “downstream frequency band.” Fig. 5; 39-43.
Lowering the frequency edge of a downstream frequency band in a
communication system having a split point as taught by the combination of
Helms and Purchase yields the predictable result of “defining a portion of a
second upstream/downstream split point” within the meaning of claim 1.
We sustain the rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103. Appellant
does not present arguments for separate patentability of claims 2—26 and 28,
which fall with claim 1.
6
Appeal 2015-006452
Application 12/789,961
DECISION
The Examiner’s rejections of claims 1—26, and 28 are 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)(l)(iv). See
37 C.F.R. § 41.50(f).
AFFIRMED
7