Ex Parte KrugDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardMay 31, 201310745258 (P.T.A.B. May. 31, 2013) Copy Citation UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________________ Ex parte WILLIAM P. KRUG ____________________ Appeal 2010-012309 Application 10/745,258 Technology Center 2600 ____________________ Before JEAN R. HOMERE, THU A. DANG, and ELENI MANTIS-MERCEDER, Administrative Patent Judges. DANG, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2010-012309 Application 10/745,258 2 I. STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a Final Rejection of claims 1-9, 11-20, 22-30, 32-40, and 42-47. Claims 10, 21, 31, and 41 have been canceled. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. A. INVENTION Appellant’s invention relates to communication systems on a mobile platform, and more particularly to an open local area network that incorporates in route entertainment, cabin services, and satellite Internet subsystems onboard the mobile platform. (Spec. 1, ¶[0002]). B. ILLUSTRATIVE CLAIM Claim 1 is exemplary: 1. A local area network (LAN) suitable for a mobile platform, the LAN comprising: at least one area distribution box (ADB) that performs open systems interconnections (OSI) layer-3 routing to provide access to the LAN, the at least one ADB further configured as at least one switch providing open OSI layer-2 connectivity to the LAN by a plurality of different subsystems of the platform using a common frequency band; and a plurality of seat electronics boxes (SEBs) in communication with the at least one ADB, each SEB configured to provide a virtual local area network (VLAN) mapped to a group of seats on the mobile platform corresponding to the SEB and to provide each seat with at least one protected OSI layer-2 port. Appeal 2010-012309 Application 10/745,258 3 C. REJECTIONS The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on appeal is: Ross US 5,394,402 Feb. 28, 1995 Gresham US 2002/0160773 A1 Oct. 31, 2002 Kathol US 7,213,055 B1 May 1, 2007 Claims 1, 12, 23, and 33 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph as failing to comply with the written description requirement. Claims 1-9, 11-20, 22-30, 32-40, 42, 43, 45, and 47 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Kathol and Ross. Claims 44 and 46 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Kathol, Ross, and Gresham. II. ISSUES The main issues before us are whether the Examiner has erred in determining that: 1) the limitation “using a common frequency band” (claim 1) is not supported by the original specification; and 2) the combination of Kathol and Ross teaches or would have suggested “at least one area distribution box (ADB) . . . to provide access to the LAN” wherein the ADB “performs open systems interconnections (OSI) layer 3 routing” (claim 1). III. FINDINGS OF FACT The following Findings of Fact (FF) are shown by a preponderance of the evidence. Appeal 2010-012309 Application 10/745,258 4 Appellant’s Invention 1. Appellant’s Figure 4A is reproduced below: Figure 4A shows a server 160 providing content to the network 120, wherein from the area distribution box (ADB) 122, the network fans out to the seat electronics boxes 128 in the star topology 162 via fiber optic cables 126, and each electronics box 128, in turn, provides one or more communication paths 130 or 132 for connection of peripheral hosts or carryons at the seats 188 (Amendments to Spec.7-8, ¶¶[0037-38]). Kathol 2. Kathol discloses a passenger in-flight entertainment system, wherein Kathol’s Figure 4 is reproduced below: Appeal 2010-012309 Application 10/745,258 5 Figure 4 discloses a head-end 70 connected to a first ADB 40 by way of an RF cable LAN 77 connection, and the first ADB 40 propagates the radio frequency (RF)/cable LAN connection 77 to subsequent ADBs, wherein each ADB 40 services one or more seat boxes 100 and each seat box 100 services one or more airline passengers 45 (col. 7, ll. 42-60). IV. ANALYSIS 35 U.S.C. § 112, 1st Paragraph The Examiner finds that “the limitation ‘ . . . one switch . . . using a common frequency band . . . ’ [as recited in claims 1 and 23] is not support[ed] by the original specification” (Ans. 3). The Examiner also makes the same findings with respect to “. . . ADB . . . using a common based bandwidth . . .” of claims 12 and 33 (id.). Although the Examiner does not disagree with Appellant that “Ethernet is an example of a baseband network” wherein “one frequency channel is used at a time,” the Examiner Appeal 2010-012309 Application 10/745,258 6 finds that “the appellant’s specification does not have sufficient saying about his invention using Ethernet” (Ans. 9). However, Appellant points to the Specification which states that “Under seats 318 a seat electronics box 328 provides switched connectivity for the passengers in the seats 318” and that “[a]n OSI layer-2 switch at the seat electronics box (SEB) 328 is labeled ‘Ethernet switch (under seat)’” (Reply Br.8, emphasis omitted). Thus, Appellant contends that “there nevertheless is support in the specification and drawings for ‘a common base bandwidth’ and ‘using a common frequency band’ as recited in the claims” (id.). Upon review of the record, we agree with Appellant. In particular, we agree with Appellant that the Specification does have sufficient support for use of the Ethernet. We conclude that, upon reading the Specification, one skilled in the relevant art would have understood that the inventor was in possession of the claimed “a common base bandwidth” and “using a common frequency band” at the time the application was filed. Accordingly, we reverse the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 12, 23, and 33. 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) Appellant contends that even if the ADB of Kathol performs routing, “it does not ‘perform’ layer-3 routing” because “[l]ayer-3, or network layer routing (as known in the art) involves intercepting digital packets and directing them toward an address indicated in the packet” (App. Br. 10). According to Appellant, “[t]he ADB of Kathol appears to be merely a conduit of a modulated signal 77” (id.) and “not disclosed as selecting paths or making routing decisions” (id. at 11). Appeal 2010-012309 Application 10/745,258 7 The Examiner finds that “Kathol teaches very similar network infrastructure as the appellant does” and that “[t]he ADB of Kathol does route data at least between two digital networks” (Ans. 10, citation omitted). The Examiner explains that “[o]ne of ordinary skill in the art knows that layer 3 is the network layer including routing in an open network system” and finds that “Kathol teaches such network system comprising at least one ADB with routing, the component, ADB, as part of the network system would provide the routing too” (id. at 11). We find no error in the Examiner’s findings. We note that Appellant’s arguments that 1) Kathol does not perform “layer-3 routing” because layer-3 routing “involves intercepting digital packets and directing them toward an address indicated” and that 2) the ADB of Kathol is not disclosed as “selecting paths or making routing decisions” (App. Br. 10-11) are not commensurate in scope with the recited language of claim 1. That is, claim 1 does not recite any such “intercepting,” “directing,” “selecting” or “making routing decisions” steps, but rather, merely recites that the ADB “performs open systems interconnections (OSI) layer 3 routing.” We give the claim its broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the Specification. See In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054 (Fed. Cir. 1997). Claim 1 does not define “layer-3 routing” other than at least one ADB performs such “open system interconnections (OSI) layer-3 routing” with the intended purpose of “to provide access to the LAN.” Thus, we give “routing” its broadest reasonable interpretation as sending or forwarding data through a particular route. Thus, as specifically defined in the claim, we give “layer-3 routing” its broadest reasonable interpretation as sending or Appeal 2010-012309 Application 10/745,258 8 forwarding data between interconnections in an open system to provide access to the LAN. Kathol discloses a head-end connected to an ADB by way of an RF cable LAN connection, and the ADB then propagates the RF/cable LAN connection to subsequent ADBs, wherein each ADB services one or more seat boxes and each seat box services one or more airline passengers (FF 2). That is, Kathol discloses an ADB that routes data between interconnections in an open system for access to the LAN. Thus, we conclude that Kathol, in view of Ross, would at least have suggested routing of data between interconnections in an open system is similar to the routing in the system of Appellant’s invention (FF 1). Accordingly, we find no error in the Examiner’s finding that “[t]he ADB of Kathol does route data at least between two digital networks” (Ans. 10), and find no error in the Examiner’s conclusion that “[o]ne of ordinary skill in the art knows that layer 3 is the network layer including routing in an open network system” wherein “Kathol teaches such network system comprising at least one ADB with routing” (id. at 11). Furthermore, even if claim 1 were to require a particular “layer-3 routing” that includes “intercepting digital packets and directing them toward an address indicated in the packet,” “selecting paths or making routing decisions,” we conclude that the skilled artisan would have found it obvious to apply such particular “layer-3” routing as the routing step performed by the ADB of Kathol . That is, the skilled artisan is “a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton.” KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 421(2007). As stated by the Supreme Court, an obviousness “analysis need not seek out precise teachings directed to the specific subject Appeal 2010-012309 Application 10/745,258 9 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. at 418. See also DyStar Textilfarben GmbH & Co. Deutschland KG v. C.H. Patrick Co., 464 F.3d 1356, 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2006). Given the breadth of Appellant’s claims, we are not persuaded and Appellant has presented no evidence that applying a particular “layer-3” routing by the ADB was “uniquely challenging or difficult for one of ordinary skill in the art.” Leapfrog Enters., Inc. v. Fisher-Price, Inc., 485 F.3d 1157, 1162 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (citing KSR at 418). Thus, we find no error in the Examiner’s conclusion that Kathol in view of Ross would at least have suggested an ADB that “performs open systems interconnections (OSI) layer 3 routing” as required by claim 1. Accordingly, Appellant has shown no error in the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1 over Kathol and Ross. Appellant provides no arguments for claims 12 and 23 separate from those of claim 1 (App. Br. 11), and thus, claims 12 and 23 and claims 2-9, 11, 13-20, 22, 24-30, 32-40, 42, 43, 45, and 47 depending respectively therefrom fall with claim 1 over Kathol and Ross. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(iv) (2012). Similarly, Appellant provides no arguments for claims 44 and 46 (App. Br. 11), and thus, Appellant also does not show error in the Examiner’s rejection of claims 44 an 46 over Kathol and Ross in further view of Gresham. V. CONCLUSION AND DECISION The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 12, 23 and 33 under35 U.S.C. § 112, 1st Paragraph is reversed, but the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-9, 11-20, 22-30, 32-40, and 42-47 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) is affirmed. Appeal 2010-012309 Application 10/745,258 10 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 llw Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation