Ex parte Depue

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jun 7, 2000

08562197 (B.P.A.I. Jun. 7, 2000)

-1-
THIS OPINION WAS NOT WRITTEN FOR PUBLICATION
The opinion in support of the decision being entered
today (1) was not written for publication in a law
journal and (2) is not binding precedent of the Board.
Paper No. 13
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
________________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
________________
Ex parte CLAYTON S. DEPUE
________________
Appeal No. 1998-1696
Application No. 08/562,197
________________
ON BRIEF
________________
Before KRASS, JERRY SMITH, and RUGGIERO, Administrative Patent
Judges.
KRASS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal from the final rejection of
claims 2 through 12, 14 and 15, all of the claims remaining in
the application.
Appeal No. 1998-1696
Application No. 08/562,197
-2-
The invention is directed to a multiplexer device for
enabling more than one line telephone service provided on two
conductor analog subscriber telephony lines to be multiplexed
over a single existing interior conventional two conductor
wire and demultiplexed at the terminal subscriber location to
more than one analog two conductor subscriber lines.
Independent claim 15 is reproduced as follows:
15. A system for increasing the capacity of
preexisting subscriber lines located within a subscriber’s
premises comprising:
at least two external analog telephone subscriber lines
supplied by a telephone service provider including data,
voice, and control signals;
a master multiplexer subscriber line unit located
external to said subscriber’s premises comprising:
at least two frontend electronic connections to said at
least two external analog telephone subscriber lines supplied
by the telephone service provider;
multiplexing and demultiplexing circuitry for data voice
communications for said at least two external analog telephone
subscriber lines;
detection and generation circuitry for analog telephone
signaling and control;
an interior preexisting conventional two conductor telephone
wire;
a slave demultiplexer subscriber line unit located within said
subscriber’s premises comprising:
Appeal No. 1998-1696
Application No. 08/562,197
-3-
at least two output electronic connections for the
generation of signals for two internal analog telephone
subscriber lines for connection to analog terminal subscriber
equipment;
multiplexing and demultiplexing circuitry for data voice
communications for said at least two internal analog telephone
subscriber lines;
AC power supply provided by said subscriber;
detection and generation circuitry for analog telephone
signaling and control, and
wherein said at least two external analog telephone
subscriber lines supplied by a telephone service provider are
functionally connected to said analog terminal subscriber
equipment through said master multiplexer, multiplexed across
said interior preexisting conventional two conductor telephone
wire, received by said slave multiplexer and connected to said
at least two internal analog telephone subscriber lines
thereby increasing the internal preexisting line capacity
without physically adding additional lines internally.
The examiner relies on the following references:
Williamson et al. (Williamson) 4,999,613 Mar. 12, 1991
Fry et al. (Fry) 5,140,630 Aug. 18, 1992
Yeh 5,347,164 Sep. 13, 1994
Claims 2 through 12, 14 and 15 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103. As evidence of obviousness, the examiner
cites Fry with regard to claims 2 through 7, 9 through 12 and
15, adding Williamson with regard to claim 8 and adding Yeh to
Fry with regard to claim 14.
Appeal No. 1998-1696
Application No. 08/562,197
-4-
Reference is made to the brief and answer for the
respective positions of appellant and the examiner.
OPINION
At the outset, we note that, in accordance with
appellant’s grouping of the claims at page 5 of the brief, all
claims stand or fall together. Accordingly, we consider only
independent claim 15.
We reverse.
We have reviewed the evidence in the case including,
inter alia, the arguments by appellant and the examiner, as
well as the Randolph, Rightmyer and Taplett affidavits, and
conclude therefrom that the examiner has failed to establish a
prima facie case of obviousness with regard to the instant
claimed subject matter. Accordingly, the three affidavits
need not be considered.
First, independent claim 15 recites, inter alia, that the
slave demultiplexer subscriber line unit comprises “AC power
supply provided by said subscriber.” While the examiner
Appeal No. 1998-1696
Application No. 08/562,197
-5-
recognizes that Fry does not disclose such an AC power supply,
the examiner contends that it would have been obvious to
provide for such a power supply “in order to reduce the cost
of hauling power all the way from a central office” [Answer-
page 5]. We disagree. Since the main line equipment 23 of
Fry is apparently not within the customer’s (subscriber’s)
premises and, in any event, certainly not accessible by the
subscriber, there would have been no reason in Fry to supply
an “AC power supply provided by said subscriber,” as claimed.
We would note, in passing, however, that the claimed AC power
supply provided by the subscriber is never recited, in claim
15, as being connected to anything.
Moreover, and more importantly, it is clear from claim 15
that the arrangement of the claimed elements are as shown in
Figure 1. That is, the external telephone subscriber lines
(14, 15, 16) supplied by the service provider are functionally
connected to the terminal subscriber equipment (40, 42, 44,
46) “through said master multiplexer, multiplexed across said
interior preexisting conventional two conductor telephone
Appeal No. 1998-1696
Application No. 08/562,197
-6-
wire, received by said slave multiplexer and connected to said
at least two internal analog telephone subscriber lines
thereby increasing the internal preexisting line capacity
without physically adding additional lines internally”
[emphasis ours], as claimed. Clearly, as shown in Fry’s
Figure 4, even given the examiner’s interpretation of box 22
as the “master multiplexer” and box 23 as the “slave
multiplexer,” there does not exist, in Fry, the functional
connection recited by claim 15. The interior preexisting
conventional two conductor telephone wire would appear to be
shown, in Fry, as lines 20' and 21'. Yet, these lines are not
located intermediate the master multiplexer and the slave
multiplexer, as claim 15 would require. Also, the functional
connection recited in the last paragraph of claim 15 makes it
clear that the slave multiplexer subscriber line unit is
within the subscriber’s premises because the slave multiplexer
is downstream from the interior preexisting telephone wire
relative to the master multiplexer.
Since Fry is deficient in these specifically claimed
limitations and we find no logical reason, within the meaning
of 35 U.S.C. § 103, to modify Fry in any way so as to arrive
Appeal No. 1998-1696
Application No. 08/562,197
-7-
at the instant claimed subject matter, we will not sustain the
rejection of claims 2 through 12, 14 and 15 under 35 U.S.C. §
103. We note, with regard to claims 8 and 14, that Williamson
and Yeh, respectively, do not supply the deficiencies noted
supra with regard to Fry.
While we have reversed the rejections of the claims
because, in our view, no prima facie case of obviousness was
satisfactorily established by the examiner, we note, for
completeness, that we do not agree with appellant’s contention
that there is no teaching of pre-existing interior telephone
lines in Fry. It would appear to us that lines 20' and 21'
are such interior telephone lines. But, even if not, it would
have been well known to artisans that subscriber’s premises
all have
the recited pre-existing interior telephone lines.
Appeal No. 1998-1696
Application No. 08/562,197
-8-
The examiner’s decision is reversed.
REVERSE
ERROL A. KRASS )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
)
)
JERRY SMITH ) BOARD OF PATENT
Administrative Patent Judge ) APPEALS AND
) INTERFERENCES
)
)
)
JOSEPH F. RUGGIERO )
Administrative Patent Judge )
Appeal No. 1998-1696
Application No. 08/562,197
-9-
rwk
LACASSE & ASSOCIATES
RANDY W. LACASSE
2001 JEFFERSON DAVIS HWY
SUITE 806
ARLINGTON, VA 22202