Ex Parte Lee et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardAug 28, 201310843766 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 28, 2013) Copy Citation 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 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation