Ex Parte Davis et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 13, 2012

10123383 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 13, 2012)

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.
10/123,383 04/15/2002 Robert Davis PD-201092 7181
20991 7590 12/13/2012
THE DIRECTV GROUP, INC.
PATENT DOCKET ADMINISTRATION
CA / LA1 / A109
2230 E. IMPERIAL HIGHWAY
EL SEGUNDO, CA 90245
EXAMINER
RAMAN, USHA
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2424
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/13/2012 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 ROBERT DAVIS, MICHAEL FICCO, and PETER PARDEE1
____________

Appeal 2010-007329
Application 10/123,383
Technology Center 2400
____________

Before JOHN A. JEFFERY, JEREMY J. CURCURI,
and JAMES B. ARPIN, Administrative Patent Judges.

ARPIN, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 1-8 and 10-54.2 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. §
6(b). We affirm.3

1 DirecTV Group, Inc. is the real party in interest.
2 Claim 9 is cancelled.
3 Throughout this opinion, we refer to (1) the Appeal Brief (App. Br.) filed
October 26, 2009; (2) the Examiner’s Answer (Ans.) mailed December 8,
2009; and (3) the Reply Brief (Reply Br.) filed February 8, 2010.
Appeal 2010-007329
Application 10/123,383

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants’ invention is directed to satellite communication systems
and to interfaces for linking a satellite antenna and a Low Noise Block
(LNB) converter to a local area network (LAN) at a particular site, to which
a plurality of indoor units (IDUs) are connected. See generally Spec. ¶¶
[0002], [0003], [0011]; Figs. 3-5. Claims 1 and 18 are illustrative and are
reproduced below with disputed limitations emphasized:
1. A satellite communication system, comprising:
at least one satellite antenna for receiving a signal transmitted from a
satellite, wherein said satellite antenna includes at least one Low
Noise Block (LNB) converter, wherein the satellite antenna and the
LNB are located at an outdoor unit (ODU) site;
an interface device including a connection to said LNB, and further
including a connection to a local area network (LAN) connecting
together a plurality of indoor units (IDUs) that are located at an indoor
unit site, wherein said interface device converts said transmitted signal
received from said LNB into a digital baseband signal and the digital
baseband signal is transmitted across said LAN to at least one of the
plurality of IDUs;
a storage device connected to said LAN for storing said transmitted
digital baseband signal, the storage device located at the IDU site;
and
a server application for downloading data comprising at least a
portion of the stored transmitted digital baseband signal to the at
least one of the plurality of IDUs, according to a request for said
downloaded data by the at least one of the plurality of IDUs.
18. An apparatus for interfacing one or more Low Noise Block converters
(LNBs) of at least one satellite antenna located at an outdoor unit (ODU) site
to a plurality of indoor units (IDUs) located at an indoor unit site, the
apparatus comprising:
at least one first port for connection to each of the one or more LNBs
at the ODU site;
Appeal 2010-007329
Application 10/123,383

3
a signal processing device for converting signals received through
said at least one first port into digital baseband signals; and
a second port for connection to a local area network (LAN) for
transmitting said digital baseband signals to one or more of the
plurality of IDUs at the IDU site through said LAN; wherein
a storage device located at the IDU site is connected to said LAN for
storing said digital baseband signals that have been transmitted
through said LAN; and
a server application is configured for downloading data comprising at
least a portion of the stored digital baseband signals to one or more
of the plurality of IDUs, according to a request for said downloaded
data by said one or more of the plurality of IDUs.
The Examiner relies on the following references as evidence of
unpatentability:
Budow US 5,521,631 May, 28, 1996
Williams US 5,970,386 Oct. 19, 1999
Humpleman4 US 6,198,479 B1 Mar. 6, 2001
Humpleman5 US 6,493,874 B2 Dec. 10, 2002
Ram US 7,260,069 B2 Aug. 21, 2007

THE REJECTIONS
1. The Examiner rejected claims 1-3, 5-8, 10, 12-23, 31-37, 39-50,
and 52-546 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Humpleman I and
Budow. Ans. 3-10.

4 This reference is referred to hereinafter as “Humpleman II.”
5 This reference is referred to hereinafter as “Humpleman I.”
6 The Examiner appears to have omitted inadvertently claim 54 from this list
of rejected claims. Because both the Examiner and Appellants treat this
claim as rejected (see Ans. 2; App. Br. 2; Reply Br. 1), we treat claim 54 as
Appeal 2010-007329
Application 10/123,383

4
2. The Examiner rejected claims 4, 25-30, and 51 under 35 U.S.C. §
103(a) as unpatentable over Humpleman I, Budow, and Humpleman II. Id.
at 10-14.
3. The Examiner rejected claims 11 and 24 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as unpatentable over Humpleman I, Budow, and Ram. Id. at 14-15.
4. The Examiner rejected claim 38 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Humpleman I, Budow, and Williams. Id. at 15-16.

OBVIOUSNESS REJECTION OVER HUMPLEMAN I AND BUDOW
Regarding claim 1, the Examiner finds that Humpleman I teaches or
suggests all recited limitations, except for (1) a satellite antenna and a LNB
converter, (2) a storage device for storing transmitted digital baseband
signals, and (3) a server application for downloading data comprising at least
a portion of the stored transmitted digital baseband signal to at least one of
the plurality of IDUs according to a request. Id. at 3-4. The Examiner finds,
however, that Budow teaches or suggests these missing limitations,7 and that
it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine
the teachings of Humpleman I and Budow to achieve the claimed invention.
Id. at 4-5.

rejected on the same grounds as independent claim 53, from which it
depends.
7 Budow does not teach or suggest that the downlink comprises an LNB
converter. Nevertheless, the Examiner takes Official Notice that LNB
converters are well known in the art at the time of the invention. Ans. 4.
Appellants do not contest this Official Notice.
Appeal 2010-007329
Application 10/123,383

5
Initially, we note that the disputed limitations appear in substantially
identical form in each of the rejected independent claims 1, 18, 31, and 53.8
Appellants argue that Budow does not teach or suggest (1) that a storage
device is located at the IDU site (App. Br. 10-11); (2) that both the storage
device and the application server are connected to the LAN, such that digital
baseband signals are transmitted across the LAN before storage on the
storage device (id. at 11-14); and (3) that the storage device is located at the
same location as the IDU (id. at 13-14). Further, Appellants argue that,
unlike network interface units (NIUs) 32 of Humpleman I, the interface
device of Appellants’ claim 1 is not located at the IDU site. Id. at 14-15.
ISSUE
Under § 103, has the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1 by finding
that Huppleman I and Budow would have taught or suggested “a storage
device connected to said LAN for storing said transmitted digital baseband
signal, the storage device located at the IDU site”?
ANALYSIS
1. Claim Construction.
We begin by construing the disputed limitations of claim 1 which
recites, in pertinent part,
a storage device connected to said LAN for storing said
transmitted digital baseband signal, the storage device located
at the IDU site; and
a server application for downloading data comprising at
least a portion of the stored transmitted digital baseband signal
to the at least one of the plurality of IDUs, according to a

8 These limitations also appear in independent claim 25 which is rejected as
unpatentable over a different combination of references. App. Br. 23.
Appeal 2010-007329
Application 10/123,383

6
request for said downloaded data by the at least one of the
plurality of IDUs.
In construing these limitations, we apply the broadest reasonable meaning of
the words in their ordinary usage, as those words would be understood by
one of ordinary skill in the art, taking into account any definitions supplied
by Appellants’ Specification. In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054 (Fed. Cir.
1997).
A storage device is generally understood to be a device, such as a
memory, for receiving and storing information. As the Specification makes
clear, the storage device, such as a storage device 38, also must be capable
of permitting stored information to be accessed by other devices. See Spec.
¶¶ [0063], [0066]; Fig. 4. Referring to Figure 4,
a server application 36 and storage device 38 are connected to
wired LAN 50 in site 30. However, it should be noted that this
embodiment could also be implemented in the wireless LAN
configuration shown in Fig. 3. It is further noted that the
storage device 38 need not be part of the LAN 50, but merely
accessible by the LAN 50. It is further noted that the server
application 36 and/or the storage device 38 could be part of the
interface 40.
Spec. ¶ [0061] (emphases added). In claims 1 and 18, we note that the
storage device is described as connected to the LAN, but that the server
application is not. Therefore, we construe claims 1 and 18 to require that the
storage device is connected to the LAN, but that these claims encompass
embodiments in which the server application is and is not connected to the
LAN.
According to claims 1 and 18, “the storage device is located at the
IDU site.” A pertinent definition of a “site” is “the position or location of a
town, building, etc., esp. as to its environment.” RANDOM HOUSE
Appeal 2010-007329
Application 10/123,383

7
WEBSTER’S COLLEGE DICTIONARY 1225 (2d Random House ed. 1999).
Referring to Figures 2-4, Appellants describe plural IDUs 32 located at a
particular site 30. Spec. ¶¶ [0049], [0050], [0058]-[0061]. Thus, we
construe an IDU site simply to describe the location of plural IDUs relative
to components located at other sites. Appellants distinguish between
components of the system of claim 1 or the apparatus of claim 18 based on
whether or not those components are located at the IDU site and, for
example, the ODU site.
For example, claims 1 and 18 recite that the at least one satellite
antenna and the LNB converter are located at an ODU site, but that the
plurality of IDUs and the storage device are located at the IDU site. Neither
claim, however, identifies the location of the interface device or of the server
application. Although, like the IDUs, claims 1 and 18 recite that the
interface is “connected” to the LAN, we find that the interface may be
located at the IDU site or the ODU site or at neither or both of those sites.
See Spec. ¶ [0036] (interface 40 may be part of ODU 10 or “apart from the
ODU 10 either inside building 30 . . . or at another outdoor location . . . ”
(emphasis added)); Fig. 2. Similarly, the location of server application may
be the IDU site or the ODU site or neither or both of those sites. See Spec. ¶
[0061] (“server application 36 . . . could be part of the interface 40”); Fig. 4.
Therefore, we do not construe claims 1 and 18 as limiting the location of the
interface or of the server application. Moreover, because the locations of the
interface and the server application are not limited by claim 1 or 18, we do
not construe the LAN as included entirely with the IDU site.
In addition, claim 18 does specify the location of the at least one first
port and the at least one second port for connection and the signal processing
Appeal 2010-007329
Application 10/123,383

8
device of the apparatus for interfacing. Thus, we construe claim 18 as
reciting an apparatus for interfacing that may be located, wholly or partially,
at the ODU site or at the IDU site, or some combination thereof. See Spec. ¶
[0062] (server application 36 may be executed on a processor 48 included,
together with storage device 38, in interface device 40).
2. Claims 1-3, 5-8, 10, 12-17, 37, and 39-50.
As noted above, Appellants argue that Budow does not teach or
suggest (1) that a storage device is located at the IDU site (App. Br. 10-11);
(2) that both storage device and the application server are connected to the
LAN, such that digital baseband signals are transmitted across the LAN
before storage on the storage device (id. at 11-14); and (3) that the storage
device is located at the same location as the IDU (id. at 13-14). Further,
Appellants argue that, unlike NIUs 32 of Humpleman I, the interface device
of Appellants’ claim 1 is not located at the IDU site. Id. at 14-15. For the
following reasons, we are not persuaded that any of these arguments
distinguish the invention of claim 1 over Humpleman I and Budow.
Appellants argue that claim 1 recites that the storage device is located
at the IDU site and that the interface and the storage device are connected to
the LAN. Id. at 11. Because claim 1 recites that the interface converts a
transmitted signal to a digital baseband signal and transmits digital baseband
signals across the LAN to at least one of a plurality of IDUs and because
claim 1 recites that the storage device stores transmitted digital baseband
signals, Appellants argue that the LAN must be located between the storage
device and the interface. Id. As noted above, we agree with Appellants’
construction of claim 1.
Appeal 2010-007329
Application 10/123,383

9
We find, however, that the Examiner relies on Budow for the limited
purpose of teaching or suggesting including a storage device and a server
application in the system described in Humpleman I. Ans. 17-19. The
Examiner does not seek to modify Humpleman I to reorder the components
in the manner described in Budow. The Examiner relies upon Humpleman I
to teach or suggest the satellite antenna, the interface device, the LAN, the
IDUs, and the connections between the interface and the LAN and between
the LAN and the IDUs,9 and the Examiner need not also rely on Budow to
teach or suggest these limitations. Ans. 16-17. Instead, as noted above, the
Examiner relies upon Budow to teach or suggest that one of ordinary skill in
the relevant art would have a reason to combine the features of Budow’s
system with those of Humpleman I to achieve a system in which stored
signals, such as movies, may be retrieved on demand from a storage device
located at the IDU site by a server application and transmitted to at least one
of plural IDUs. Id.
“The test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary
reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary
reference . . . . Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the
references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art.” In re
Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981). Thus, “if a technique has been
used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would

9 The Examiner notes that, by including a digital video cassette recorder
(DVCR) 16 within house 36, Humpleman I teaches or suggest a device for
storing video content at the IDU site. Ans. 16-17. Although DVCR 16 may
strengthen the Examiner’s rationale for combining Humpleman I and
Budow, we do not here consider this additional argument which is first
raised in the Examiner’s Answer.
Appeal 2010-007329
Application 10/123,383

10
recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the
technique is obvious unless its actual application is beyond his or her skill.”
KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 417 (2007). Therefore, we are
not persuaded by Appellants’ arguments of the impropriety of the
combination of Humpleman I and Budow.
Further, Appellants argue that, to the extent that the Examiner finds
that Budow’s Integrated Receiver Decoder (IRD) 11 corresponds to the
interface of claim 1, the remaining limitations of claim 1 are not satisfied by
Humpleman I and Budow. App. Br. 11. Referring to Budow’s Figure 2,
Appellants note that Budow’s video server 12 and computer control system
13 are depicted as located between IRD 11 and distribution network 14.
App. Br. 13. Appellants also argue that, as depicted in their Figure 4, server
application 36 and storage device 38 are connected only to the LAN. Id. at
12. Thus, Appellants argue that the combination of Humpleman I and
Budow fails to teach or suggest that signals transmitted by the interface over
the LAN are stored in a storage device.
Nevertheless, claim 1 does not recite that the storage device and the
server application are connected only to the LAN. See Ans. 20. We
construe claim 1 as requiring only that the interface, the IDUs, and the
storage device are connected to the LAN. Although the claims are construed
in light of the specification, limitations from the specification, including the
drawings, are not read into the claims. In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181,
1184 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Moreover, the Examiner finds that Humpleman I’s
NIUs 32, rather than Budow’s IRD 11, teach or suggest the interface of
Appellants’ claim 1. Ans. 18. Therefore, for these reasons, we are not
persuaded by Appellants’ argument.
Appeal 2010-007329
Application 10/123,383

11
Although Appellants acknowledge that Budow’s video server 12,
computer control system 13, and room terminals 15 are located at the same
facility, Appellants assert that the “IDU site” of claim 1 corresponds to
Budow’s hotel room containing room terminal 15. App. Br. 13.
Consequently, Appellants argue that Budow does not teach or suggest the
limitations of claim 1 that are missing from Humpleman I because Budow’s
video server 12 and computer control system 13 are not shown to be located
in the same hotel room as room terminal 15. Id. The language of claim 1,
however, does not impose so narrow a definition of the term “IDU site.” In
particular, we construe the term “IDU site” to describe the location of a
plurality of IDUs and to include a “building,” such as Budow’s hospitality
establishment. Budow, col. 2, l. 59–col. 3, l. 28; see Spec. ¶ [0036].
Therefore, for these reasons, we are not persuaded by Appellants’ argument.
Finally, in Figure 2 of Humpleman I, NIUs 32 are depicted as located
within house 36. Humpleman I, col. 4, ll. 45-53. We find that Humpleman
I’s house 36 is an IDU site. Id. at col. 4, l. 64–col. 5, l. 25. Although
Appellants acknowledge that claim 1 does not recite explicitly that the
interface is not located at the IDU site, Appellants argue that it is clear from
the claim language that the interface is not at the IDU site. App. Br. 15.
Nevertheless, Appellants fail to identify any language of claim 1 which
prevents the interface from being located at the IDU site. As noted above,
we do not construe the language of claim 1 as limiting the interface to any
particular location and find that the interface may be located at either the
IDU site or the ODU site or at neither or both of those sites. See Spec. ¶
[0036]; Fig. 2; see also Ans. 20-21. Thus, for these reasons, we find
Appellants’ argument unpersuasive.
Appeal 2010-007329
Application 10/123,383

12
For the reasons set forth above, we find that the Examiner
demonstrates that Humpleman I and Budow teach or suggest all of the
limitations of Appellants’ claim 1. Therefore, we sustain the Examiner’s
obviousness rejection of claim 1 over Humpleman I and Budow and of
claims 2, 3, 5-8, 10, 12-17, 37, and 39-50 which depend from claim 1 and
are not argued separately. App. Br. 15.
3. Claims 18-23, 31-36, and 52-54.
As we noted above, although independent claim 18 is directed to an
apparatus for interfacing,10 this claim contains limitations substantially
identical to the disputed limitations in claim 1. App. Br. 21-22. Independent
claims 31 and 53 also include substantially similar limitations to the disputed
limitations of claim 1. Id. at 24, 27-28. Appellants do not argue claims 18,
31, or 53 separately, but Appellants argue that the Examiner fails to
demonstrate that Humpleman I and Budow teach or suggest the limitations
corresponding to the disputed limitations in claims 18, 31, or 53. Id. at 15.
For the reasons set forth above with respect to claim 1, we find that
Appellants’ arguments are not persuasive and that the Examiner
demonstrates that Humpleman I and Budow teach or suggest all of the
limitations of Appellants’ claims 18, 31, and 53.11 Therefore, we sustain the

10 Because we find that Humpleman I and Budow teach or suggest the
disputed limitation of claim 18, we need not decide whether the description
of the storage device and the application server in a “wherein” clause further
limit the apparatus for interfacing of Appellants’ claim 18 to a particular
structure. See MPEP ¶ 2111.04.
11 Claim 53 recites that the LAN, the storage device, the server application,
and the plurality of IDUs are located “at a common site.” Appellants do not
define the term “common site,” and we construe this term to mean that the
listed components are at a shared location that may be the same as the IDU
Appeal 2010-007329
Application 10/123,383

13
obviousness rejection of claims 18, 31, and 53 and of claims 19-23, 32-36,
52, and 54, which depend from one of claims 18, 31, and 53 and are not
argued separately.

OBVIOUSNESS REJECTION OVER HUMPLEMAN I,
BUDOW, AND HUMPLEMAN II
In independent claim 25, Appellants describe a satellite
communication system that is similar to the satellite communication system
of claim 1, except that the satellite communication system of claim 25 is
limited to such systems comprising a wireless LAN. App. Br. 19, 23.
Similarly, Appellants’ claim 4 depends from independent claim 1 and recites
that the LAN of claim 1 comprises a wireless LAN. Id. at 20. The
Examiner acknowledges that Humpleman I is silent on whether internal
network 34 comprises a wireless LAN. Ans. 3, 10. Nevertheless, the
Examiner finds that Humpleman II teaches the use of a wireless connection
and that a person of ordinary skill in the art would modify the teachings of
Humpleman I and Budow, as applied to claims 4 or 25, to utilize a wireless
LAN. Ans. 10-11 (citing Humpleman II, col. 5, ll. 43-48).
Appellants do not argue against the Examiner’s findings regarding the
teachings of Humpleman II. Instead, Appellants merely argue that
Humpleman II fails to provide the limitations of claim 1 that allegedly are
missing from the combination that Humpleman I and Budow. App. Br. 15-
16. For the reasons set forth above, we are not persuaded that Humpleman I
and Budow fail to teach or suggest all of the limitations of claim 1. Thus,
we find no error in the Examiner’s combination of Humpleman I, Budow,

site or, because the storage device and the plurality of IDUs are located at
the IDU site, may overlap the IDU site.
Appeal 2010-007329
Application 10/123,383

14
and Humpleman II with respect to claim 4 and sustain the obviousness
rejection of that claim. Further, with respect to independent claim 25, we
similarly find no error in the Examiner’s combination of Humpleman I,
Budow, and Humpleman II and sustain the obviousness rejection of that
claim, as well as claims 26-30 and 51, which depend from and fall with
claim 25.

OBVIOUSNESS REJECTION OVER
HUMPLEMAN I, BUDOW, AND RAM
Claims 11 and 24 depend from independent claims 1 and 18,
respectively.12 App. Br. 20, 22. In particular, claim 11 recites that, in the
satellite communication system of claim 1, the interface device receives
digital baseband signals from at least one IDU, converts the received digital
baseband signal into a transmission signal, and outputs the transmission
signal to an antenna configured to transmit data to a satellite. Thus, in claim
11, Appellants describe satellite communication from at least one IDU to the
satellite antenna. Similarly, claim 24 recites that the apparatus for
interfacing of claim 18 may comprise a second signal processing device to
convert digital baseband signals received from at least one IDU into
transmission data, such that the transmission data may be output to at least
one LNB through the port connecting the apparatus to the LNB.
Regarding claims 11 and 24, the Examiner finds that the combination
of Humpleman I, Budow, and Ram teaches or suggests all of the limitations
of these claims. Ans. 14-15. Appellants raise two arguments in response to
this rejection. First, Appellants argue that Ram fails to provide the

12 Claim 24 depends from claim 18 via intervening claim 23.
Appeal 2010-007329
Application 10/123,383

15
limitations of claim 1 or 18 that allegedly are missing from the combination
that Humpleman I and Budow. App. Br. 16. In view of the foregoing
discussion of the combination of Humpleman I and Budow with respect to
claims 1 and 18, we do not find Appellants’ first argument with respect to
the combination of Humpleman I, Budow, and Ram persuasive. Second,
Appellants argue that Ram’s teaching of providing two-way communication
to and from a satellite does not provide sufficient rationale for making the
combination proposed by the Examiner. Id.
ISSUES
(1) Under § 103, has the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 11 and 24
by finding that Humpleman I, Budow, and Ram would have taught or
suggested an interface device or apparatus for interfacing that converts a
digital broadband signal from an IDU into a transmission signal and
transmits the converted signal to a satellite antenna?
(2) Is the Examiner’s reason to combine the teachings of these
references supported by articulated reasoning with some rational
underpinning to justify the Examiner’s obviousness conclusion?
ANALYSIS
On this record, we find no error in the obviousness rejection of claim
11 and 24. Discussing the question of obviousness of claimed subject matter
involving a combination of known elements, the U.S. Supreme Court
explained that:
When a work is available in one field of endeavor, design
incentives and other market forces can prompt variations of it,
either in the same field or a different one. If a person of
ordinary skill can implement a predictable variation, § 103
likely bars its patentability. For the same reason, if a technique
has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary
Appeal 2010-007329
Application 10/123,383

16
skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar
devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious unless
its actual application is beyond his or her skill.
KSR, 550 U.S. at 417 (emphasis added). If the claimed subject matter
cannot be fairly characterized as involving the simple substitution of one
known element for another or the mere application of a known technique to
a piece of prior art ready for the improvement, a holding of obviousness may
be based on a showing that “there was an apparent reason to combine the
known elements in the fashion claimed.” Id. at 418. Such a showing
requires,
“some articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to
support the legal conclusion of obviousness” . . . . [H]owever,
the analysis need not seek out precise teachings directed to the
specific subject matter of the challenged claim, for a court can
take account of the inferences and creative steps that a person
of ordinary skill in the art would employ.
Id. (quoting In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006)).
The combination of Humpleman I and Budow does not disclose a
second signal processing device or outputting the transmission signal to one
or more LNB converters. Ans. 15. Appellants do not contest that Ram
discloses two-way satellite communication, and Ram also teaches or
suggests the use of a satellite transceiver 4, such as an adapter card in a
personal computer, that receives or sends satellite transmission signals at a
residence 15 from or to a VSAT antenna 14. Final Rej. 13 (citing Ram, col.
4, ll. 45-60 (describing the VSAT system of Fig. 1)).
Claims 1 and 18, from which claims 11 and 24 depend, recite that a
transmission signal received at a satellite antenna is delivered to an interface
device via an LNB converter. The interface device or apparatus for
interfacing converts the transmission signal to a digital broadband signal
Appeal 2010-007329
Application 10/123,383

17
which is transmitted across the LAN to at least one of a plurality of IDUs.
Claims 11 and 24 recite the reverse of this sequence in which the digital
broadband signal is received by the interface from at least one of a plurality
of IDUs and is converted into a transmission signal for relay via the LNB to
the satellite antenna. We find that reversing the sequence described in
claims 1 and 18 is no more than a predicable variation of the teachings of
Humpleman I and Budow.13 See KSR, 550 U.S. at 417.
For the reasons set forth above, we find that the Examiner did not err
in finding that the combination of Humpleman I, Budow, and Ram teaches
or suggests the limitations of Appellants’ invention, as described in claims
11 and 24. Further, we find that the Examiner’s reason to combine the
teachings of these references is supported by articulated reasoning with
sufficient rational underpinning to justify the obviousness conclusion.
Therefore, we sustain the obviousness rejection of claims 11 and 24.

OBVIOUSNESS REJECTION OVER
HUMPLEMAN I, BUDOW, AND WILLIAMS
Although Appellants list claim 38 as under appeal, Appellants do not
argue in response to the obviousness rejection of this claim in the Appeal
Brief. App. Br. 2, 9; Reply Br. 2. For the reasons set forth above, we find
that Humpleman I and Budow teach or suggest all of the limitations of claim

13 In the Answer, the Examiner identifies an asymmetric digital subscriber
line (ADSL) in Humpleman I as support for combining the applied
references. Because Ram describes using the receiver for two-way
telephone communication (Ram, col. 4, ll. 55-60), Humpleman I’s using an
ADSL may strengthen the rationale for combining these references.
Nevertheless, this rationale is raised for the first time in the Answer, and we,
therefore, do not consider the identification of the ADSL in affirming this
rejection.
Appeal 2010-007329
Application 10/123,383

18
1, from which claim 38 depends; and that Appellants have waived any
arguments rebutting the grounds for rejection of claim 38 over Humpleman
I, Budow, and Williams. Therefore, we sustain the obviousness rejection of
claim 38.

CONCLUSION
The Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 1-8 and 10-54 under
§ 103(a).

ORDER
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-8 and 10-54 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)(iv).

AFFIRMED

babc