Ex parte ENGELBRECHT et al.

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Apr 30, 1998

08073442 (B.P.A.I. Apr. 30, 1998)

Application for patent filed June 8, 1993. According1
to appellants, the application is a continuation-in-part of
Application 07/598,396, filed October 18, 1990.
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(2) is not binding precedent of the Board.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. 10
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
__________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
__________
Ex parte LLOYD ENGELBRECHT,
LEONARD SCHUCHMAN, AND
RONALD BRUNO
__________
Appeal No. 95-4207
Application 08/073,4421
__________
ON BRIEF
__________
Before URYNOWICZ, THOMAS, and KRASS, Administrative Patent
Judges.
THOMAS, Administrative Patent Judge.
Appeal No. 95-4207
Application 08/073,442
2
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants have appealed to the Board from the examiner’s
final rejection of claims 1 to 26, which constitute all the
claims in the application.
Representative claim 1 is reproduced below:
1. A digital audio broadcast (DAB) system, comprising:
a master DAB radio broadcast station located at a main
predetermined terrestrial location for formatting and
broadcasting a plurality of channels of digitized program data
in a spread spectrum, time and frequency hopping waveform to
remote mobile and stationary receivers,
a plurality of relatively low power DAB range extension
radio broadcast stations, each said range extension DAB
station being located in respective terrestrial areas having
selected population densities and each range extension DAB
station having means to receive and store (delay) one or more
channels of program information from said master DAB station,
a separate program distribution system coupling said
means to receive and store at each of said range extension DAB
radio broadcast station with said master DAB radio broadcast
station,,[sic] and
means to synchronize channels of digital data re-
broadcast from each of said range extension DAB radio
broadcast stations with broadcasts from said master DAB radio
broadcast station such that a mobile receiver traveling
between edges of reception of two or more low power range
Appeal No. 95-4207
Application 08/073,442
3
extension DAB radio broadcast stations does not evidence
interference therebetween.
The following references are relied on by the examiner:
Pommier et al. (Pommier) 4,881,241 Nov. 14,
1989
Kotzin et al. (Kotzin) 5,301,188 Apr. 5, 1994
(effective filing date Feb. 27, 1990)
Noreen et al. (Noreen) 5,303,393 Apr. 12, 1994
(filing date Apr. 12, 1991)
Claims 1 to 3, 5, 6, 8, 19 to 21, 23, 24 and 26 stand
rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being anticipated by
Noreen. The remaining claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §
103. As evidence of obviousness, the examiner relies on
Noreen alone as to claims 9, 10 to 13 and 15 to 18, with the
addition of Pommier as to claims 4, 14 and 22. The examiner
also considers Noreen in view of Kotzin as evidence of
obviousness of claims 7, 17 and 25.
Appeal No. 95-4207
Application 08/073,442
4
Rather than repeat the positions of the appellants and
the examiner, reference is made to the brief and the answer
for the respective details thereof.
OPINION
We reverse the four art rejections concerning this
appeal.
We do not agree with the examiner’s correlation of
features disclosed in Noreen under 35 U.S.C. § 102 and § 103
as applied by the examiner in the statement of the rejection
of the pending claims in the final rejection on which the
examiner relies. Our study of Noreen leads us to agree with
appellants’ general arguments made at pages 4 through 6 of the
brief that the examiner’s approach appears to correlate
certain features of the claims without regard as to
functionality or equivalence in Noreen.
More specifically, turning initially to the broadest
claim on appeal, claim 19, we are mindful of the examiner’s
reliance upon the subject matter recited in Noreen’s claim 11
at the end of column 16 of his patent that the so-called data-
Appeal No. 95-4207
Application 08/073,442
5
transmitter means recited includes a spread spectrum
modulator. In the context of claim 11 as it relates to its
parent independent
claim 1 in Noreen, the stated data-transmitter means is a
transmitter in the mobile station of Noreen. Figures 2, 3A,
3B, 3E and 4 of Noreen indicate the capability of Noreen’s
mobile user terminals 107/109 in Figure 1 to transmit back to
the satellite 105 data responses. However, the discussion at
column 9, lines 43 through 62 as it relates to Figure 3E and
the discussion at column 12, lines 54 through 62 as it relates
to Figure 4 in Noreen both indicate to us that a single
carrier signal is sent back to the satellite with data from
the user/mobile terminal. This indicates in the art that
there is only a single channel of data transmitted. In
contrast, however, claim 19 requires the formatting of a
plurality of channels of digitized program data. Thus, we
must reverse the rejection of claim 19 under 35 U.S.C. § 102.
For similar reasons, the initial clause in the body of
independent claims 1 and 11 on appeal, which are respectively
rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102 and § 103, requires
Appeal No. 95-4207
Application 08/073,442
6
a similar plurality of channels formatting and broadcasting
digitized program data in a spread spectrum, time and
frequency hopping waveform format. Inasmuch as Noreen’s only
teaching that we are aware of and brought to our attention by
the examiner of the spread spectrum modulator approach for
data is in Noreen’s claim 11 at the end of column 16, we
cannot conclude within 35 U.S.C. § 102 that the spread
spectrum features of independent claims 1 and 11 on appeal are
also met.
We also reverse the rejection of claims 1 and 11 on
appeal because the synchronization that is achieved in Noreen
is achieved only by the data processing and control unit 223
in Figures 2 and 3B which is discussed at column 8, line 60
through column 9, line 20. There is no discussion at this
location or any other figure or column in Noreen that we are
aware of that relates to the synchronization of channels of a
re-broadcast capability with broadcasts from the master
station (such as broadcast station 115 in Figure 1) “such that
a mobile receiver traveling between edges of reception of two
or more low power range extension DAB radio broadcast stations
Appeal No. 95-4207
Application 08/073,442
7
does not evidence interference therebetween.” There is no
apparent discussion in Noreen of any interference between any
user terminal 107, 109 and any plurality of satellites 105.
As such there is no discussion of any need to synchronize
anything with respect to edges of reception of any beams
broadcast from these satellites 105 to
the respective mobile user terminals 107, 109 to prohibit
interference therebetween.
As to independent claim 10 we note that there is no
recitation of spread spectrum modulation in the initial clause
of the body of this claim. However, there is a recitation of
satellite timing means to perform the synchronization function
as set forth in the last clause of independent claims 1 and 11
on appeal as just discussed. There is no disclosed satellite
timing means to perform this function in Noreen. We reach
this conclusion even though we are well aware of the use of
the GPS satellite system in various locations in Noreen, which
is the same disclosed basis for the recitation of a satellite
timing means in independent claim 10 on appeal. While
appellants use the GPS satellite system for timing and
Appeal No. 95-4207
Application 08/073,442
8
synchronization among a plurality of locations, Noreen does
not teach of utilizing the time synchronization capability of
such satellites. On the other hand, Noreen only utilizes a
GPS system for location and position determining capabilities
of the remote, mobile user terminals 107 and 109.
Overall then, since we cannot agree with the examiner’s
position that independent claims 1 and 19 are anticipated by
Noreen and that claims 10 and 11 would have been obvious over
this reference, we reverse the rejection of the remaining,
dependent claims listed in each separately stated rejection by
the examiner. Since Pommier and Kotzin do not respectively
cure the deficiencies already noted in Noreen, the
respectively stated
Appeal No. 95-4207
Application 08/073,442
9
rejections relying upon these references must also be
reversed. Therefore, the decision of the examiner rejecting
various claims under 35 U.S.C. § 102 and § 103 is reversed.
REVERSED
STANLEY M. URYNOWICZ, JR. )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
JAMES D. THOMAS ) APPEALS AND
Administrative Patent Judge ) INTERFERENCES
)
)
)
ERROL A. KRASS )
Administrative Patent Judge )
Appeal No. 95-4207
Application 08/073,442
10
Jim Zegeer
Suite 108
801 North Pitt Street
Alexandria, VA 22314