Ex Parte Londono

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Oct 12, 2010

10213105 (B.P.A.I. Oct. 12, 2010)

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.
10/213,105 08/07/2002 Jaime Londono SESA-0004 2978
73870 7590 10/12/2010
Law Offices of David Schreiber
825 Third Ave, 2nd Floor
New York, NY 10022
EXAMINER
BELLO, AGUSTIN
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2613
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
10/12/2010 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 BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________________

Ex parte JAIME LONDONO
____________________

Appeal 2009-010058
Application 10/213,105
Technology Center 2600
____________________

Before ALLEN R. MacDONALD, CARLA M. KRIVAK and
THOMAS S. HAHN, Administrative Patent Judges.

MacDONALD, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL1

1 The two-month time period for filing an appeal or commencing a civil
action, as recited in 37 C.F.R. § 1.304, or for filing a request for rehearing,
as recited in 37 C.F.R. § 41.52, begins to run from the “MAIL DATE”
(paper delivery mode) or the “NOTIFICATION DATE” (electronic delivery
mode) shown on the PTOL-90A cover letter attached to this decision.
Appeal 2009-010058
Application 10/213,105

2
STATEMENT OF CASE
Introduction
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a rejection of claims
1-3, 5-10, 15-17, 20-23, 26, 27, 33, 36, 41, and 53-60. Claims 4, 11-14, 18,
19, 24, 25, 28-32, 34, 35, 37-40, and 42-52 have been canceled. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
Exemplary Claim(s)
Exemplary independent claim 1 under appeal reads as follows:
Claim 1. A method for communicating signals,
comprising:
splitting an optical signal having a first bit-rate format
into a plurality of optical signals based on bandwidths of at
least two transponders in a pre-launched satellite, each of said
plurality of optical signals has a bit-rate format smaller than the
first bit-rate format, and wherein the bit-rate formats of said
plurality of optical signals have smaller transmission
bandwidths than said first bit-rate format;
converting said plurality of optical signals into electrical
signals; and
transmitting at least two of said electrical signals through
a first transponder of the satellite and at least one of said
electrical signals through a second transponder of the satellite,
the electrical signals being transmitted through free space to the
first and second transponders,
wherein splitting the optical signal having the first bit-
rate format is performed so that a sum of bandwidths of said at
least two electrical signals fits within an operating bandwidth of
said first transponder and a bandwidth of said at least one
electrical signal has a bandwidth that fits within an operating
bandwidth of said second transponder.
Appeal 2009-010058
Application 10/213,105

3
Appellant’s Contentions
Appellant contends that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1-3,
5-10, 15-17, 20-23, 26, 27, 33, 36, 41, and 53-60 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over the combination of U.S. Patent Application
Publications 2003/0143995 to Friedman and 2003/0109220 to Hadinger
because the references alone or in combination fail to teach or suggest
numerous claim limitations. (App. Br. 9-22).
Issue on Appeal
Did the Examiner err in rejecting claims 1-3, 5-10, 15-17, 20-23, 26,
27, 33, 36, 41, and 53-60 as being obvious because the references fail to
teach or suggest claim limitations at issue?

ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiners’ rejections in light of Appellant’s
arguments that the Examiner has erred.
We disagree with Appellant’s conclusion. 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 Answer in response to Appellant’s Appeal Brief. We concur
with the conclusion reached by the Examiner.

CONCLUSIONS
(1) The Examiner has not erred in rejecting claims 1-3, 5-10, 15-17,
20-23, 26, 27, 33, 36, 41, and 53-60 as being unpatentable under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
Appeal 2009-010058
Application 10/213,105

4
(2) Claims 1-3, 5-10, 15-17, 20-23, 26, 27, 33, 36, 41, and 53-60 are
not patentable.

DECISION
The Examiner's rejection of claims 1-3, 5-10, 15-17, 20-23, 26, 27, 33,
36, 41, and 53-60 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)(v).

AFFIRMED

KIS

Law Offices of David Schreiber
825 Third Ave, 2nd Floor
New York NY 10022