Ex Parte Bye

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jan 4, 2010

10609994 (B.P.A.I. Jan. 4, 2010)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
_____________

Ex parte STEPHEN BYE
_____________

Appeal 2009-003631
Application 10/609,994
Technology Center 2600
______________

Decided: January 5, 2010
_______________

Before, JOSEPH F. RUGGIERO, ROBERT E. NAPPI, and
KARL D. EASTHOM, Administrative Patent Judges.

NAPPI, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal 2009-003631
Application 10/609,994

2
This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the final
rejection of claims 1-28. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm the Examiner’s rejections of these claims.

INVENTION
The invention is directed to a hybrid communication system that
transmits at least two of cable television, networking , and/or digital
subscriber loop (DSL) signals from a central office over an analog fiber
optic cable to a remote location. See Spec: 1-11. Claim 1 is representative
of the invention and reproduced below:
1. A hybrid communication system comprising:
an analog fiber optic distribution system from a
central office to a remote location associated with
customer premises;
a central office node located at the central office
and configured to transmit digital subscriber loop
(DSL) and cable television signals on the analog fiber
optic distribution system and convert received
transmissions from the analog fiber optic distribution
system to DSL signals; and
a remote node located at the remote location and
configured to convert received transmissions from the
analog fiber optic distribution system to respective
DSL signals for transmission over a copper
distribution system to customer premises and to cable
television signals for transmission over a coaxial
cable distribution system to customer premises and
further configured to transmit DSL loop signals
received from the copper distribution system over the
analog fiber optic distribution system.

Appeal 2009-003631
Application 10/609,994

3
REFERENCES
Alferness US 4,991,975 Feb. 12, 1991

Chellali US 6,269,154 B1 Jul. 31, 2001

BuAbbud US 2003/0128983 A1 Jul. 10, 2003
(filed Jul. 23, 2002)

Lam US 2003/0142683 A1 Jul. 31, 2003
(filed Sep. 24, 2002)

REJECTIONS AT ISSUE
Claims 1-5, 17, 18, 20, 22, 23, and 25-28 stand rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 102(e) as being anticipated by BuAbbud. Ans. 3-7.
Claims 6-8 and 19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over BuAbbud in view of Alferness. Ans. 7-9.
Claims 9-13 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over BuAbbud in view of Lam. Ans. 10-14.
Claims 14-16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over BuAbbud in view of Lam and Alferness. Ans. 14-16.
Claims 21 and 24 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over BuAbbud in view of Chellali. Ans. 16.

ISSUES
Rejection of claims 1-5, 17, 18, 20, 22,23, and 25-28 under 35 U.S.C. §
102(e) as being anticipated by BuAbbud
Appellant argues on pages 7-10 of the Appeal Brief that the
Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 17, and 26 is in error. Appellant argues
Appeal 2009-003631
Application 10/609,994

4
that BuAbbud does not teach “a central office node located at a central
office.” App. Br. 9. Appellant presents similar arguments directed to
independent claims 20 and 23 and dependent claims 2-5, 18, 22, 25, 27, and
28 on pages 7-10 of the Appeal Brief.
Thus, with respect to independent claims 1, 17, 20, 23, and 26 and
dependent claims 2-5, 18, 22, 25, 27, and 28, Appellant’s contentions
present us with the issue: Has Appellant shown that the Examiner erred in
finding that BuAbbud discloses a central office node located at a central
office?
Rejection of claims 6-16, 19, 21, and 24 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
Appellant argues on pages 10-12 of the Appeal Brief that the
Examiner’s rejection of independent claim 10 and dependent claims 6-9, 11-
16, 19, 21, and 24 is in error. Independent claim 10 contains similar
limitations to independent claims 1, 17, 20, 23, and 26. Dependent claims 6-
9, 11-16, 19, 21, and 24 are dependent upon claims 1, 10, 17, 20, 23, and 26.
Appellant presents the same issues with respect to claims 1, 17, 20, 23, and
26. App. Br. 10-12. Thus, Appellant’s arguments with respect to the
Examiner’s rejection of claims 6-16, 19, 21, and 24 present us with the same
issues as claims 1, 17, 20, 23, and 26.

FINDINGS OF FACT
1. BuAbbud teaches a method of transmitting TV signals and phone
transmissions from a source location 10 to a remote building or
home 22 via a single optical fiber cable 42. Pg. 3, ¶ [0022] and
Fig. 3.
Appeal 2009-003631
Application 10/609,994

5
2. The direct path between location 10 and 22 indicates that the TV
signal source location 10, distribution terminal 18, and substation
46 are all located together. Pg. 3, ¶¶ [0022], [0024], and Fig. 3.

PRINCIPLES OF LAW
Office personnel must rely on Appellants’ disclosure to properly
determine the meaning of the terms used in the claims. Markman v.
Westview Instruments, Inc., 52 F.3d 967, 980 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (en banc).
“[I]nterpreting what is meant by a word in a claim is not to be confused with
adding an extraneous limitation appearing in the specification, which is
improper.” In re Cruciferous Sprout Litigation, 301 F.3d 1343, 1348 (Fed.
Cir. 2002) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted; emphasis in
original).

ANALYSIS
Rejection of claims 1-5, 17, 18, 20, 22, 23, and 25-28 under 35 U.S.C. §
102(e) as being anticipated by BuAbbud
Appellant’s arguments have not persuaded us that the Examiner erred
in rejecting claims 1-5, 17, 18, 20, 22, 23, and 25-28. Independent claims 1,
17, and 26 recite “a central office node located at the central office.”
Appellant argues that BuAbbud does not disclose this claim limitation
because BuAbbud discloses a “‘cable head-end’” and not a central office.
App. Br. 8. However, Appellant’s Specification does not specifically define
“central office” or “central office node” but states, on page 12, that “[t]he
central office node 302 receives cable television signals and DSL signals and
converts them for transmission onto the analog fiber optic system.” In the
Appeal Brief, Appellant contends that the claim limitation “central office” is
Appeal 2009-003631
Application 10/609,994

6
a term of art and should be interpreted to mean “an office in which
subscriber home and business lines are connected via local loops.” App. Br.
8. However, the Examiner has provided, and Appellant has not contested,
evidence that the term “central office” has many broader definitions. Ans.
17-18. In particular, the Examiner interprets “central office” as “any
network switching system” or “‘cable head-end.’” Ans. 18-19. We agree
with the Examiner’s interpretation.
Appellant acknowledges that BuAbbud’s cable TV source location 10
and distribution station 18 are all part of a “‘cable head-end.’” App. Br. 8.
Since the Examiner has found that a central office is the same as a cable
head-end, and Appellants’ Figure 4 supports this finding by referring to a
“Central Office – Head End,” it follows that BuAbbud’s cable TV source
location 10 and distribution station 18 are also part of a central office.
However, Appellant argues that BuAbbud does not disclose that the
substation 46 is also located at a central office. App. Br. 9. We disagree.
BuAbbud discloses that there is a direct path from the TV signal
source location 10 to the building or home 22. FF 1. Accordingly,
BuAbbud discloses that the TV signal source location 10, the distribution
station 18, and the substation 46 are all co-located with one another. FF 2.
Hence, BuAbbud does disclose a central office node located at a central
office (i.e., cable head-end) and Appellant’s arguments are not found to be
persuasive.
Therefore, for the reasons stated above, we sustain the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 1-5, 17, 18, 20, 22, 23, and 25-28.

Appeal 2009-003631
Application 10/609,994

7
Rejection of claims 6-16, 19, 21, and 24 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
Appellant’s arguments have not persuaded us of error in the
Examiner’s rejection of claims 6-16, 19, 21, and 24. Independent claim 10
recites similar limitations as independent claims 1, 17, 20, 23, and 26.
Claims 6-8 ultimately depend upon claim 1; claims 11-16 ultimately depend
upon claim 10; claim 19 ultimately depends upon claim 17; claim 21
ultimately depends upon claim 20; and claim 24 ultimately depends upon
claim 23. Appellant’s arguments that the rejection of these claims is in error
for the reasons discussed supra with respect to claims 1, 17, 20, 23, and 26 is
not persuasive for the reasons discussed supra with respect to claims 1, 17,
20, 23, and 26. Therefore, we will not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of
claims 6-16, 19, 21, and 24.

CONCLUSION
Appellant has not shown that the Examiner erred in finding that
BuAbbud discloses a central office node located at a central office.

SUMMARY
The Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1-28 is affirmed.

Appeal 2009-003631
Application 10/609,994

8
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

MYERS BIGEL SIBLEY & SAJOVEC
P.O. BOX 37428
RALEIGH, NC 27627