Ex Parte Norin

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 17, 2016

11810797 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 17, 2016)

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.
11/810,797 06/07/2007 John L. Norin PD-205061 4617
20991 7590 08/18/2016
THE DIRECTV GROUP, INC.
PATENT DOCKET ADMINISTRATION
CA / LA1 / A109
2230 E. IMPERIAL HIGHWAY
EL SEGUNDO, CA 90245
EXAMINER
SMITH, CHENEA
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2421
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/18/2016 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 JOHN L. NORIN
____________

Appeal 2015-002152
Application 11/810,797
Technology Center 2400
____________

Before MAHSHID D. SAADAT, JOHNNY A. KUMAR, and JON M.
JURGOVAN, Administrative Patent Judges.

JURGOVAN, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant1 seeks review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final
rejection of claims 1, 2, 4–6, 21–23, and 25–29. Claims 3, 7–20, and 24
were canceled. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.2

1 Appellant identifies The DirecTV Group, Inc. as the real party in interest.
(App. Br. 1.)
2 Our Decision refers to the Specification filed June 7, 2007 (“Spec.”), the
Final Office Action mailed Dec. 23, 2013 (“Final Act.”), the Appeal Brief
filed Sept. 4, 2014 (“App. Br.”), the Examiner’s Answer mailed Sept. 29,
2014 (“Ans.”), and the Reply Brief filed Dec. 1, 2014 (“Reply Br.”).
Appeal 2015-002152
Application 11/810,797
2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The claims are directed to a satellite receiver system. (Spec. 1:11–
13.) Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. A system for delivering signals to a one or more clients
comprising:
a gateway comprising:
a tuner having a first input coupled to accept a
modulated input signal having television programming,
the tuner for demodulating the modulated input signal;
a processor, coupled to the tuner, for generating a
television signal having at least a first portion of the
television programming from the modulated input signal
and for providing the television signal to a coaxial cable
network;
a converter, coupled to the processor, the converter
for converting the television signal to a second signal for
distribution to the one or more client devices via a
different network than the coaxial cable network; and
a splitter, having an input coupled to a source of
the modulated input signal, a first output coupled to the
first input of the tuner, and a second output providing at
least a portion of the modulated input signal having at
least a second portion of the television programming to
the one or more client devices via the splitter and the
coaxial cable network;
wherein the processor further manages providing
the at least a portion of the modulated input signal to the
one or more client devices via the splitter.

REJECTIONS
Claims 1, 2, 4, 21, 22, and 25–27 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) based on Markley et al. (US 2007/0217436 A1; Sept. 20, 2007) and
Majeti et al. (US 5,488,412; Jan. 30, 1996). (Final Act. 5–7.)
Claim 5 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based on Markley,
Majeti, and Dockery (US 5,327,230; July 5, 1994). (Final Act. 7–8.)
Appeal 2015-002152
Application 11/810,797
3
Claim 6 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based on Markley,
Majeti, and Russ et al. (US 2003/0097662 A1; May 22, 2003). (Final Act.
8–9.)
Claims 23, 28, and 29 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based
on Markley, Majeti, and Lee (US 7,012,885 B1; Mar. 14, 2006). (Final Act.
9–10.)

APPELLANT’S CONTENTIONS
1. Appellant contends the combination of Markley and Majeti does
not teach:
a splitter, having an input coupled to a source of the modulated
input signal, a first output coupled to the first input of the tuner,
and a second output providing at least a portion of the
modulated input signal having at least a second portion of the
television programming to the one or more client devices via
the splitter and the coaxial cable network,

as recited in independent claim 1. (App. Br. 9–12; Reply Br. 2–4.)
Appellant argues the combination is improper, because it results in the
second coaxial output of Majeti’s splitter being routed to Markley’s Wi-Fi
laptop, which would not function properly because a laptop typically lacks a
coaxial connector or the ability to demodulate the television programming
signal the splitter provides. (Id.) Further, Appellant argues Markley’s
laptop already receives a wireless signal from the gateway, and thus would
not need the coaxial connection. (Id.)
2. Appellant further contends the combination of Markley and Majeti
does not teach the splitter of claim 1 because Majeti’s splitter provides a
television signal to a set top box and a data signal to a personal computer,
Appeal 2015-002152
Application 11/810,797
4
thus Majeti’s second output provides a data signal to the coax network and
not the claimed television signal. (App. Br. 13–14.)
3. Appellant contends, assuming arguendo that the second output of
Majeti’s splitter is provided to another device that is not Markley’s wireless
laptop, the resulting combination of Markley and Majeti does not teach the
system of claim 1 because the “one or more client devices” connected to the
converter (identified by the Examiner as the wireless signal to the laptop)
must be the same as the “one or more client” devices connected to the
coaxial cable network via the splitter. (Reply Br. 5–7.)
4. Appellant contends the combination of Markley and Majeti does
not teach “the processor further manages providing the at least a portion of
the modulated input signal to the one or more client devices via the splitter,”
as required by claim 1. (App. Br. 12; Reply Br. 7.) Appellant argues
Markley’s gateway (i.e., consumer premises equipment (CPE) 106) is not
coupled to other elements so as to permit such management, and the gateway
already provides a signal to the Wi-Fi laptop and is not along the signal path
from the splitter to the Wi-Fi laptop. (Id.)
5. Appellant contends the Examiner failed to provide a reasoned
explanation or analysis as to how and why one of ordinary skill in the art
would combine Markley and Majeti. (App. Br. 11–12; Reply Br. 8.)
Appellant argues the Examiner’s proffered rationale of “extending a
home/local area network such that additional devices may be incorporated,
which is also common and well-known in the art, thereby providing a more
reliable and diverse system” does not explain why one would modify
Markley to include “another device” coupled by the coax/splitter
combination instead of simply coupling the device by Wi-Fi or by the coax
network (without the splitter) as already taught by Markley. (Id.) Appellant
Appeal 2015-002152
Application 11/810,797
5
contends the Examiner’s combination offers no advantages, but incurs the
cost of an additional splitter. (Id.)
6. Appellant contends the combination of Markley and Majeti does
not teach “transmitting the generated television signal to a client bridge via
the coaxial cable network” and “converting the received television signal
into a third signal for distribution to the one or more clients via . . . a
wireless network,” as recited in claim 26. (App. Br. 15; Reply Br. 9.)
Appellant argues Markley does not disclose transmission of the signal from
the client bridge by Wi-Fi as claimed, but rather, by an Ethernet connection.
(Id.)

ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellant’s
arguments (App. Br. 9–15; Reply Br. 2–9) that the Examiner erred. We
disagree with Appellant’s above contentions 1–6. We adopt as our own (1)
the findings and reasons set forth by the Examiner in the action from which
this appeal is taken (Final Act. 4–10) and (2) the reasons set forth by the
Examiner in the Examiner’s Answer (Ans. 2–7) in response to Appellant’s
Appeal Brief. We concur with the conclusions reached by the Examiner.
We highlight and address specific findings and arguments for emphasis as
follows.

Independent Claim 1
Regarding Appellant’s contentions 1 and 2 that the combination
requires the second coaxial output of Majeti’s splitter to be routed to
Markley’s Wi-Fi laptop and would not provide a second portion of the
television signal, we are not persuaded of Examiner error because Appellant
Appeal 2015-002152
Application 11/810,797
6
has mischaracterized the Examiner’s rejection. The Examiner combines
Majeti’s concept of a coaxial network splitter with the home network of
Markley, where the first splitter output is coupled to the gateway’s tuner and
the second splitter output is coupled to another receiving device in another
room of the home, not the Wi-Fi laptop. (Ans. 6.) We agree with the
Examiner that one of ordinary skill in the art would find it obvious to add a
coaxial splitter for mere duplication of a part in Markley’s home network
(e.g., an additional television). (See St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., Inc.,
549 F.2d 833, 836 (7th Cir. 1977): mere duplication is generally an obvious
modification.)
We are unpersuaded of Examiner error by Appellant’s contention 3
that the “one or more client devices” connected to the converter must be the
same as the “one or more client” devices connected to the coaxial cable
network via the splitter. Claim 1 requires the devices connected to the
converter use a “different network than the coaxial cable network,” while the
devices connected to the splitter use the coaxial cable network. The broadest
reasonable interpretation consistent with Appellant’s disclosure of “the one
or more client devices” includes a set of different devices that are connected
to different networks. (See In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054 (Fed. Cir.
1997).) Thus, we agree with the Examiner’s finding that the devices
connected to the converter can be Markley’s Wi-Fi devices, while the
devices connected to the splitter use the coaxial cable network. (Final Act.
5–7; Ans. 6.)
As to Appellant’s contention 4, we are not persuaded that the
combination of Markley and Majeti fails to teach the processor of claim 1.
The Examiner finds Markley’s processor is coupled to the tuner to provide at
least a first portion of the television signal to at least one of the client
Appeal 2015-002152
Application 11/810,797
7
devices (i.e., Markley’s television 234), and because the combination of
Majeti’s splitter results in the first splitter output being coupled to the tuner
(per the discussion supra), we agree with the Examiner’s finding that the
processor manages providing at least a [first] portion of the modulated input
signal to the television client device “via the splitter.” (Final Act. 5 (citing
Markley ¶¶ 97–100)). Claim 1 does not require the processor to manage the
second portion of the television signal (i.e., the second output of the splitter).
Regarding Appellant’s contention 5, we find the Examiner has
articulated a valid reasoning with “some rational underpinning to support the
legal conclusion of obviousness.” (See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex
Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007) (citing In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed.
Cir. 2006)).). As stated supra, we agree with the Examiner’s rationale that
adding Majeti’s splitter to Markley’s coaxial network would have allowed
for duplication of the television signal, thus expanding the capability of the
network and increasing the number of devices in the home. (Ans. 6.)
Appellant notes that “another device” could be coupled to Markley’s
network using Wi-Fi or the coax network with no splitter, however we agree
with the Examiner’s finding that a skilled artisan would recognize the
conventional use of a splitter to create the additional coaxial network
connection. (Ans. 6.)
Independent Claim 26
As to Appellant’s contention 6 that Markley does not disclose
transmission of the signal from the client bridge by Wi-Fi, we are not
persuaded of Examiner error because the Examiner finds, and we agree, that
Markley teaches the signal from the client bridge may use any network
protocol, including wired or wireless communication (Ans. 5 (citing
Markley ¶¶ 58 and 95)).
Appeal 2015-002152
Application 11/810,797
8

Remaining Claims
No separate arguments are presented for claims 2, 4–6, 21–23, 25 and
27–29 (see App. Br. 15), therefore we sustain their rejection for the reasons
stated with respect to independent claims 1 and 26.

DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1, 2, 4–6, 21–23,
and 25–29 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
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