Ex Parte Krug

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

May 31, 2013

10745258 (P.T.A.B. May. 31, 2013)

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