Ex Parte Loughran et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Oct 10, 2002

09023469 (B.P.A.I. Oct. 10, 2002)

The opinion in support of the decision being entered today was not
written for publication and is not binding precedent of the Board.
Paper No. 26
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
__________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
__________
Ex parte KEVIN LOUGHRAN
and
CHRISTOPHER FRANCIS ZAPPALA
Appeal No. 2001-1941
Application No. 09/023,469
__________
ON BRIEF
__________
Before HAIRSTON, LALL, and DIXON, Administrative Patent
Judges.
HAIRSTON, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is an appeal from the final rejection of claims
1 through 18.
The disclosed invention relates to an apparatus that
comprises a downconverter for downconverting an information-
bearing signal to an intermediate frequency signal, a
transmitter for transmitting the intermediate frequency
Appeal No. 2001-1941
Application No. 09/023,469
2
signal over a twisted-pair wireline and a demodulating means
for receiving and demodulating the intermediate frequency
signal.
Claim 1 is illustrative of the claimed invention, and
it reads as follows:
1. An apparatus comprising:
a first antenna for receiving a first information-
bearing signal at a first radio frequency;
a first downconverter for downconverting said
first information-bearing signal to a first
intermediate frequency;
a first transmitter for transmitting said first
information-bearing signal at said first intermediate
frequency over a first wireline, wherein said first
wireline is twisted-pair;
means for receiving said first information-bearing
signal at said first intermediate frequency from said
first wireline and for demodulating said first
information-bearing signal.
The references relied on by the examiner are:
Baba et al. (Baba) 3,750,020 Jul. 31, 1973
Lee 5,504,936 Apr. 2, 1996
Nakagoshi et al. (Nakagoshi) 5,799,252 Aug. 25, 1998
(filed Mar. 1, 1996)
Claims 1, 5 through 7 and 11 through 13 stand rejected
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Lee in
view of Baba.
Appeal No. 2001-1941
Application No. 09/023,469
3
Claims 2 through 4, 8 through 10 and 14 through
18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Lee in view of Baba and Nakagoshi.
Reference is made to the briefs (paper numbers 10 and
14) and the answer (paper number 11) for the respective
positions of the appellants and the examiner.
OPINION
We have carefully considered the entire record before
us, and we will reverse the obviousness rejection of claims
1 through 18.
According to the examiner (answer, page 3), Lee
discloses (Figure 3) a first antenna 13b, a first converter
49, a first transmitter for transmitting an information-
bearing signal over a first wireline 25 and a means
demodulating the information-bearing signal. The examiner
acknowledges (answer, pages 3 and 4) that the converter
49 is not a downconverter that downconverts an information-
bearing signal to an intermediate frequency signal, and that
the first wireline 25 is not a twisted-pair wireline. Based
upon Lee’s teaching (column 7, lines 21 through 25) that
“[i]t will be apparent to those skilled in the art that such
Appeal No. 2001-1941
Application No. 09/023,469
4
cables may include, for example, T1 carrier cables, optical
fibers, or the like,” the examiner concludes (answer, page
4) that “it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill
in the art at the time the invention was made to provide
twisted-pair cable to the system of Lee in order [to] reduce
the cost of the system.” With respect to the intermediate
frequency signal, the examiner indicates (answer, page 4)
that “Baba teaches that the received high frequency signal
fR2 from a distant repeater is first down convert[ed] into
the intermediate frequency signal fm2 and sent to the
preceding repeater over the cable for further processing”
(column 3, lines 18 through 36). With this teaching in
mind, the examiner contends (answer, page 4) that “[i]t
would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art
at the time the invention was made to provide the teaching
of Baba to the transmission of Lee in order to reduce
radiation of the transmitted signal, thereby reducing
transmission loss ([Baba,] col. 5, lines 21-24).”
Appellants argue (brief, page 7) that:
First, neither Lee nor Baba teach or suggest,
alone or in any combination, what the claims
recite, namely the transmission of an intermediate
Appeal No. 2001-1941
Application No. 09/023,469
5
signal over a “twisted pair” wireline. Whereas
Lee teaches the transmission of optical frequency
signals over “optical fibers” (col. 7, line[s]
44-45) and baseband signals over “T1 carrier cables”
(col. 7, lines 46-47), Baba teaches the transmission of
intermediate frequency signals over “leaky coaxial
cable” (col. 2, line 34). Furthermore, nowhere does
Baba or Lee teach or suggest any deficiency with
coaxial cable or optical fiber.
Appellants additionally argue (brief, page 8) that “[e]ven
though Baba taught the transmission of signals at IF
frequencies to minimize power loss, even Baba didn’t see, as
did the inventors of the present invention, that the use of
IF frequencies obviated the need for coaxial cable.”
We agree with appellants’ arguments. Thus, the
obviousness rejection of claims 1, 5 through 7 and
11 through 13 is reversed because “no proper combination of
Lee and Baba teaches or suggests the present invention”
(brief, page 9; reply brief, page 5). The obviousness
rejection of claims 2 through 4, 8 through 10 and 14 through
18 is likewise reversed because the teachings of Nakagoshi
fail to cure the noted shortcomings in the combined
teachings of Lee and Baba.
Appeal No. 2001-1941
Application No. 09/023,469
6
DECISION
The decision of the examiner rejecting claims 1 through
18 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) is reversed.

REVERSED

KENNETH W. HAIRSTON )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
PARSHOTAM S. LALL ) APPEALS AND
Administrative Patent Judge ) INTERFERENCES
)
)
)
JOSEPH L. DIXON )
Administrative Patent Judge )
KWH:hh
Appeal No. 2001-1941
Application No. 09/023,469
7
JASON PAUL DEMONT
DEMONT & BREYER, LLC
P.O. BOX 7490
SHREWSBURY, NJ 07702