Ex Parte Lee et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 28, 2013

10843766 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 28, 2013)

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.
10/843,766 05/12/2004 Lin-Nan Lee PD-203033 5063
20991 7590 08/28/2013
THE DIRECTV GROUP, INC.
PATENT DOCKET ADMINISTRATION
CA / LA1 / A109
2230 E. IMPERIAL HIGHWAY
EL SEGUNDO, CA 90245
EXAMINER
TRAN, HAI V
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2423
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/28/2013 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 LIN-NAN LEE, MUSTAFA EROZ, FENG-WEN SUN,
JOHN CORRIGAN, WALTER KEPLEY, KURIACOSE JOSEPH,
and SCOTT CASAVANT
_____________

Appeal 2011-001191
Application 10/843,766
Technology Center 2400
______________

Before, MARC S. HOFF, DAVID M. KOHUT, and
JOHN G. NEW, Administrative Patent Judges.

KOHUT, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2011-001191
Application 10/843,766

2
This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the Non-
Final Rejection of claims 9-25.1 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b).
We affirm the Examiner’s rejection of these claims.

INVENTION
The invention is directed to a method, computer-readable medium,
access point, and hub for distributing multi-media information. Spec. 4-6.
Claim 9 is representative of the invention and is reproduced below:
9. A method for supporting distribution of multi-media
information, the method comprising:
receiving at an access point device a signal containing
uncompressed digital video information distributed from a
central hub that is configured to support distribution to a
plurality of access point devices;
converting the video signal to a format compatible to a
display; and
outputting the converted video signal to the display.

REFERENCES
Jeffery US 2002/0007490 A1 Jan. 17, 2002

Rakib US 6,678,740 B1 Jan. 13, 2004

Lyle US 7,242,766 B1 Jul. 10, 2007
(filed Nov. 21, 2001)

Carr US 7,549,056 B2 June 16, 2009
(filed Dec. 20, 2002)

1 Claims 1-8, 26, and 27 have been allowed by the Examiner. Non-Final 3.
Appeal 2011-001191
Application 10/843,766

3
REJECTIONS AT ISSUE2
Claims 9, 11, 13-15, 23, and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over the combination of Carr and Jeffery. Ans. 4-6
and 11-12.
Claims 10, 12, 17, and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over the combination of Carr, Jeffery, and Rakib. Ans.
6-7, 9, and 12.
Claims 16, 18, 20, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over the combination of Carr and Rakib. Ans. 7-9.
Claims 19 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over the combination of Carr, Rakib, and Lyle. Ans. 10-11.

ISSUES
Did the Examiner err in finding that the combination of Carr and
Jeffery teaches or suggests “receiving at an access point device a signal
containing uncompressed digital video information distributed from a central
hub that is configured to support distribution to a plurality of access point
devices,” as recited in independent claim 9 and similarly recited in
independent claims 15 and 23?
Did the Examiner err in finding the combination of Carr and Jeffery
would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art?
Did the Examiner err in finding the combination of Carr and Rakib
teaches or suggests “a demodulator configured to demodulate received
signals for distribution to a plurality of access point devices, wherein the

2 The Examiner used separate headings for claims rejected using the same
references. Ans. 4-12. For convenience, we have combined those claims
into the one rejection statement.
Appeal 2011-001191
Application 10/843,766

4
demodulated signal contains uncompressed digital video information for
distribution to the plurality of access point devices,” as recited in
independent claim 16?

ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellants’
contentions that the Examiner has erred.
We disagree with Appellants’ conclusions. We adopt as our own
(1) the findings and reasons set forth by the Examiner in the action from
which this appeal is taken and (2) the reasons set forth by the Examiner in
the Examiner’s rejection of the claims and in the Examiner’s Answer in
response to Appellants’ Appeal Brief. We concur with the conclusions
reached by the Examiner. In addition, below we highlight the following
arguments for emphasis.
Claims 9, 11, 13-15, 23, and 24
Appellants initially argue that the Examiner erred in finding that Carr
and Jeffery teach or suggest receiving a signal containing uncompressed
digital video information at an access point, as required by independent
claims 9, 15, and 23.3 App. Br. 7-8; Reply Br. 3-4. Specifically, Appellants
contend that, in Carr, when the data is received by the set top box the data
will have already been processed. App. Br. 7-8; Reply Br. 4. Thus,
Appellants contend that Carr teaches away from the combination. App. Br.
7. However, Appellants are misconstruing the Examiner’s findings. The
Examiner finds that Carr teaches a system that contemplates processing data

3 Appellants select claims 9 and 23 as representative of the group comprising
claims 9, 11, 13-15, 23, and 24. App. Br. 5.
Appeal 2011-001191
Application 10/843,766

5
using an integrated circuit at either the set top box or the home device.4 Ans.
14. The Jeffery reference is simply used to show that it was known in the art
to have uncompressed digital video information.5 Ans. 14. Thus, it is the
combination of Jeffery with Carr that teaches a system that received
uncompressed digital video information at an access point. We agree with
the Examiner’s finding.
Appellants additionally argue that the Examiner’s motivation to
combine the references is flawed because “Carr is already able to remotely
select and control multiple sources of content to be viewed at home device
30.” App. Br. 9; Reply Br. 5. Therefore, Appellants contend that there is no
reason to combine the references. App. Br. 9; Reply Br. 5. We disagree.
In KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., the Supreme Court
emphasized “the need for caution in granting a patent based on the
combination of elements found in the prior art,” and discussed circumstances
in which a patent might be determined to be obvious. 550 U.S. 398, 415
(2007). Importantly, the Supreme Court reaffirmed principles based on its
precedent that “[t]he combination of familiar elements according to known
methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable
results.” Id. at 416. Here, as indicated above, the Examiner finds (Ans. 4-
5), and we agree, that each element of claims 9 and 23 is taught by the
combination of references, and the combination is nothing more than using
known elements to perform their known functions yielding predictable
results.

4 The Examiner finds that the home device equates to the claimed access
point. Ans. 4.
5 Appellants admit this factual finding. App. Br. 7.
Appeal 2011-001191
Application 10/843,766

6
For the reasons indicated supra, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection
of claims 9, 11, 13-15, 23, and 24.
Claims 10, 12, 16- 22, and 25
Appellants make the same arguments with respect to claims 10, 12,
16-22, and 25 as with respect to claims 9 and 23. App. Br. 9-13. We sustain
the Examiner’s rejection of these claims for the same reasons discussed
supra with respect to claims 9 and 23.
CONCLUSION6
The Examiner did not err in finding the combination of Carr and
Jeffery teaches or suggests “receiving at an access point device a signal
containing uncompressed digital video information distributed from a central
hub that is configured to support distribution to a plurality of access point
devices,” as recited in independent claim 9 and similarly recited in
independent claims 15 and 23.
The Examiner did not err in finding the combination of Carr and
Jeffery would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
The Examiner did not err in finding the combination of Carr and
Rakib teaches or suggests “a demodulator configured to demodulate
received signals for distribution to a plurality of access point devices,
wherein the demodulated signal contains uncompressed digital video

6 We have decided the Appeal before us, however, in the event of further
prosecution, the Examiner should evaluate claim 15 in light of In re Nuijten,
500 F.3d 1346 (Fed. Cir. 2007), and Subject Matter Eligibility of Computer
Readable Media, 1351 Off. Gaz. Pat. Office 212 (Feb. 23, 2010). We note
that Appellants’ Specification specifically includes transitory signals as a
computer-readable medium. See Spec. ¶ [0060].

Appeal 2011-001191
Application 10/843,766

7
information for distribution to the plurality of access point devices,” as
recited in independent claim 16.

SUMMARY
The Examiner’s decision to reject claims 9-25 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

msc