Ex Parte Maxson et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardSep 21, 201814326589 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 21, 2018) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 14/326,589 07/09/2014 133681 7590 Mannava & Kang, P.C. 3201 Jermantown Road Suite 525 Fairfax, VA 22030 09/25/2018 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Ben Maxson 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 ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO. 1095.0019 1221 EXAMINER RIAZ, SAHAR AQIL ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2424 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 09/25/2018 ELECTRONIC 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. Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the following e-mail address(es): docketing@mannavakang.com dmitry.brant@viavisolutions.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte BEN MAXSON and KOJI OKAMOTO Appeal 2018-002623 Application 14/326,589 1 Technology Center 2400 Before DEBRA K. STEPHENS, DANIEL J. GALLIGAN, and DAVID J. CUTITTA II, Administrative Patent Judges. STEPHENS, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of claims 1-21, which are all of the claims pending in the application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ). We REVERSE. 1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Viavi Solutions INC. (App. Br. 3). Appeal 2018-002623 Application 14/326,589 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER According to Appellants, the claims are directed to a system for injecting test signals into a cable network at a power level lower than the power level of active signals on the cable network (Spec. ,r 40, Abstract). Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 1. A method for obtaining a frequency response of a cable network between first and second spaced apart points thereof, the method comprising: (a) inserting a multi-frequency test signal into the cable network with a transmitter at the first point at a power level below that of active signals on the cable network, so as to substantially not disrupt the transmission of the active signals; and (b) coherently detecting power readings of the multi- frequency test signal with a receiver at the second point of the cable network; and c) generating the frequency response of the cable network from results of step b ). REFERENCES The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on appeal is: Tanabe Sung Shafer Totten US 2004/0214603 Al US 2006/0098749 Al US 2012/0213083 Al US 2014/0282783 Al REJECTIONS Oct. 28, 2004 May 11, 2006 Aug. 23, 2012 Sept. 18, 2014 Claims 1, 2, 4, 11, 12, 14, 17, 18, and 21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(l) as being anticipated by Shafer (Final Act. 4---6). Claims 3, 5, 7-10, 13, 15, 16, and 19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Shafer and Totten (id. at 7-9). 2 Appeal 2018-002623 Application 14/326,589 Claim 6 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Shafer, Totten, and Sung (id. at 9--10). Claim 20 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Shafer and Tanabe (id. at 10). ISSUE 35 USC§ 102(a)(l) Appellants contend their invention, as recited in claims 1, 2, 4, 11, 12, 14, 17, 18, and 21, is patentable over Shafer (App. Br. 7-10). The issue presented by the arguments is whether the Examiner has shown Shafer discloses "inserting a multi-frequency test signal into the cable network with a transmitter at the first point at a power level below that of active signals on the cable network," as recited in claim 1 (App. Br. 7-10; Reply Br. 5-13). Specifically, Appellants argue Shafer's "injected signal is described as being at a first power level approximating the downstream cable provider signals" and so "cannot be reasonably interpreted as being below the power level of the active signals on the cable network" (App. Br. 8-9; Reply Br. 6-7). Appellants further argue that, although Shafter's injected test signal's power level attenuates and lowers as the test signal reflects off network components and propagates through Shafer's cable network, that propagated lower- power test signal is not an "insert[ed]" test signal (App. Br. 6-7, 9--10; Reply Br. 9). We are persuaded by Appellants' contentions. The Examiner relies on (Ans. 9; Final Act. 4) Shafer's description of a test signal [that] is generated ... and injected at a first power level and propagates through the cable port. In one example, the first power level approximates the signal strength of the cable 3 Appeal 2018-002623 Application 14/326,589 provider's downstream bandwidth (e.g., -15 to+ 15 dBm V) .... As the test signal propagates through the drop system, it reflects off devices and components in the coaxial line, thereby decreasing the initial power level. The reflected signal propagates back towards the connector portion 46 of the diagnostic device 36 and enters the diplexer circuit 72 at a second, lower power level (Shafer ,r 29; see id ,r,r 8-9). Based on Shafer's injected test signal at a first power level and reflected test signal that enters a diplexer circuit at a second, lower, power level, the Examiner determines that "Shafer discloses that the first power level is a power level below that of active signals on the cable network" (Ans. 9; Final Act. 2-3). Shafer, however, indicates that the first power level of its injected test signal "approximates the signal strength of the cable provider's downstream bandwidth (e.g., -15 to+ 15 dBm V)" (Shafer ,r 29). Thus, Shafer discloses, the injected test signal's power level is the power level of the cable provider's active signal, rather than "at a power level below that of active signals on the cable network." The Examiner has not set forth with specificity how the power level of Shafer's injected test signal, i.e., the first power level, is lower than any other active signal's power level on Shafer's cable network. Furthermore, to the extent the Examiner relies on the test signal's reception at the diplexer circuit at the second, lower, power level to disclose an "insert[ ed] ... test signal into the cable network" (Ans. 10), Shafer describes that the test signal has already been inserted into the cable network when the test signal is received by the diplexer circuit (see Shafer ,r 29 ("a test signal is generated ... and injected at a first power level and propagates through the cable port ... [the] signal propagates back towards the 4 Appeal 2018-002623 Application 14/326,589 connector portion 46 of the diagnostic device 36 and enters the diplexer circuit 72 at a second, lower power level")). Although the test signal's first power level is lowered as it propagates through the cable network to a lower second power level (id.), that second power level is not the test signal's "insert[ed] ... power level" into the cable network as required by claim 1 ( claim 1 ( emphasis added)). Rather, that second power level is the test signal's power level as it propagates through the cable network and enters the diplexer circuit, having already been inserted into the cable network (see Shafer ,r 29). The Examiner has not explained with sufficient detail how Shafer's test signal that is received by Shafer's diplexer is "insert[ed] ... into the cable network ... at a power level below that of active signals," as recited in claim 1. Dependent claims 2-20 stand with independent claim 1. Because we agree with Appellants' argument that the Examiner erred in finding Shafer anticipates independent claim 1, we need not reach the merits of Appellants' other arguments directed to dependent claims 2-20 (see App. Br. 10-13). Additionally, the Examiner rejects claim 21 based on the same findings and reasoning relied upon in the rejection of claim 1 (Final Act. 6; see Ans. 8-10). Similar to the reasons set forth above, the Examiner has not sufficiently shown where or explained how Shafer describes "a transmitter configured to provide a multi-frequency test signal to the cable network at the first point thereof at a power level below that of active signals on the cable network," as recited in claim 21. Therefore, we do not sustain the rejections of claims 1, 2, 4, 11, 12, 14, 17, 18, and 21 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(l) as anticipated by Shafer, claims 3, 5, 7-10, 13, 15, 16, and 19 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable 5 Appeal 2018-002623 Application 14/326,589 over Shafer and Totten, claim 6 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Shafer, Totten, and Sung, and claim 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Shafer and Tanabe. DECISION The Examiner's rejection of claims 1, 2, 4, 11, 12, 14, 17, 18, and 21 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(l) as being anticipated by Shafer is reversed. The Examiner's rejection of claims 3, 5, 7-10, 13, 15, 16, and 19 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Shafer and Totten is reversed. The Examiner's rejection of claim 6 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Shafer, Totten, and Sung is reversed. The Examiner's rejection of claim 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Shafer and Tanabe is reversed. REVERSED 6 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation