Ex Parte Norin et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 29, 2016

11930745 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 29, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
111930,745 10/31/2007
20991 7590 08/30/2016
THE DIRECTV GROUP, INC
PA TENT DOCKET ADMINISTRATION
CA I LAI I Al09
2230 E. IMPERIAL HIGHWAY
EL SEGUNDO, CA 90245
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
John L. Norin
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.
PD-205091 1284
EXAMINER
LUONG, ALAN H
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2425
MAILDATE DELIVERY MODE
08/30/2016 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 and RICHARD B. TATEM
Appeal2015-005055
Application 11/930,745
Technology Center 2400
Before MAHSHID D. SAADAT, LARRY J. HUME, and
ALEX S. YAP, Administrative Patent Judges.
YAP, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants 1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the final rejection
of claims 1-25, which are all the claims pending in this application. We
have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b)
We affirm.
1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is The DIRECTTV
Group. (App. Br. 2.)
Appeal2015-005055
Application 11/930,745
STATEivIENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
Appellants' disclosed and claimed invention relates "generally to
satellite television systems and, more particularly, to a satellite television
system having acting as a local head end to distribute various channels
throughout a building." (Spec. i-f 1.) Claim 1 is illustrative, and is
reproduced below:
1. A receiving unit comprising:
a tuner module tuning a satellite signal;
a demodulator demodulating the satellite signal to form a
transport stream signal;
an IP encapsulation module generating an IP encapsulated
signal from the transport stream signal and communicating the
IP encapsulated signal through a network to a device controlling
a display;
a decoder module decoding the IP encapsulated signal to
form an analog signal; and
a modulator modulating the analog signal and
communicating the modulated signal to a television tuner
through the network.
Prior Art and Rejections on Appeal
The following table lists the prior art relied upon by the Examiner as
evidence in rejecting the claims on appeal:
Rakib
Morris et al.
("Morris")
Sheppard et al.
("Sheppard")
Phillips et al.
("Phillips")
US 2002/0019984 Al
US 2002/0116707 Al
US 2003/0192053 Al
US 2004/0163125 Al
2
Feb. 14,2002
Aug. 22, 2002
Oct. 9, 2003
Aug. 19, 2004
Appeal2015-005055
Application 11/930,745
Lankford et al.
("Lankford")
Reinoso
Gutknecht et al.
("Gutknecht")
US 2006/0271954 Al Nov. 30, 2006
US 2008/0066095 Al Mar. 13, 2008
US 2009/0278992 Al Nov. 12, 2009
Claims 1-2, 4--8, and 11-14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over Lankford in view of Rakib and further in view of
Sheppard. (See Final Office Action (mailed May 28, 2014) ("Final Act.") 7-
13.)
Claim 3 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Lankford in view ofRakib, and further in view of
Reinoso. (See Final Act. 13.)
Claims 9 and 10 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Gutknecht in view of Philips and Lankford, and further in
view of Morris. (See Final Act 13-14.)
Claims 15-17 and 19-25 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Lankford in view ofRakib. (See Final Act. 14--21.)
Claim 18 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Lankford in view of Rakib, and further in view of
Gutknecht. (See Final Act. 21.)
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner's rejections in light of Appellants'
arguments the Examiner erred. We are not persuaded that the Examiner
erred in rejecting the claims on appeal for the reasons discussed, infra.
3
Appeal2015-005055
Application 11/930,745
Argument One
IP Encapsulated Signal and Decoded IP Encapsulated Signal
Are Not from the Same Demodulator
With respect to claim 1, the Examiner finds Lankford teaches all the
limitations of claim 1 other than "a decoder module" and "a modulator."
(Final Act. 7-9.) The Examiner, however, determines that Rakib teaches a
decoder for decoding IP encapsulated signal to form an analog signal and
Sheppard teaches a modulator for modulating the analog signal and
communicating the modulated signal to a second television tuner. (Final
Act. 9-10.)
Appellants contend:
Lankford does not disclose, as claimed, communicating an IP
encapsulated signal and a decoded version of the IP encapsulated
signal respectively to a device controlling a display and a
television tuner, where the IP encapsulated signal and the
decoded version of the IP encapsulated signal are based on the
same transport stream signal generated by a single demodulator.
(App. Br. 7-9, emphasis added; Reply 10-11.) In other words, Appellants
argue Lankford does not teach an IP encapsulated signal and a decoded
version of the IP encapsulated signal that are from the same tuner/
demodulator. According to Appellants, "each of the tuner/demodulators ...
220 [and] 225 provides a respective signal to a corresponding one of the
televisions ... 60 [and] 70," therefore, the signal transmitted to television
60 is independent of the signal transmitted to television 70. (App. Br. 8.)
Figure 2 of Lankford is reproduced below.
4
Appeal2015-005055
Application 11/930,745
Fig. 2 depicts the system of Lankford.
Appellants have not persuaded us the Examiner erred. The Examiner
finds Lankford teaches an IP encapsulation module (packet formatter 280)
that encapsulates transport stream signal (e.g., from Tuner/Demod 220 and
225) to generate an IP encapsulated signal for displays (TVs 60 and 70).
Although Lankford teaches there can be a one to one correspondence
between a Tuner/Demod and a television (e.g., Tuner/Demod 220
corresponds to TV 60 and Tuner/Demod 225 corresponds to TV 70),
Lankford also teaches "televisions 60 and 70 [can] share the same tuner and
receive the same video signals from that tuner." (Lankford i-fi-126, 32.)
Therefore, contrary to Appellants' contention, the IP encapsulation module
(packet formatter 280) can encapsulate the signal from the same tuner/
demodulator transport stream for different displays (e.g., TVs 60 and 70).
One of the two encapsulated signals from packet formatter 280 can then be
5
Appeal2015-005055
Application 11/930,745
decoded (to form a decoded IP encapsulated signal) and modulated before
being provided to the television tuner.
Argument Two
Rakib Does Not Disclose Communicating an IP Encapsulated Signal and
an Decoded IP Encapsulated Signal to Devices in the Same Network
As discussed above, the Examiner finds Rakib teaches a decoder for
decoding an IP encapsulated signal to form an analog signal. (Final Act. 8;
Rakib i-fi-176, 115, FIGs. 5, 8.) Therefore, "one of ordinary skill in the art
[would be motivated to] modify the system of Lankford [to] include[] a
decoder module decoding the IP encapsulated signal to form an analog
signal as taught by Rakib to provide the MPEG decompression process
where the data is decompressed prior to conversion to a format which can be
displayed." (Final Act. at 8---9.)
Appellants, however, argue:
Regardless of whether Rakib discloses an IP decoder that
decodes an IP encapsulated signal to form an analog signal,
Rakib does not disclose communicating a signal (or IP
encapsulated signal) and a decoded version of the signal via the
same network respectively to a device controlling a display and
a television tuner, where the signal and the decoded version of
the signal are based on the same transport stream signal
generated by a single demodulator.
(App. Br. 10.) Specifically, Appellants argue "there is no suggestion in
Rakib that the packets received by the decompression and conversion circuit
110 (in Rakib) and the packets received by the NIC or bus transceiver 164
are the same packets. . . . Furthermore, [] the signals transmitted by the
decompression and conversion circuit 110 and the NIC or bus transceiver
164 are not transmitted via the same network." (Reply 8, emphasis added.)
6
Appeal2015-005055
Application 11/930,745
We are not persuaded the Examiner erred because "one cannot show
non-obviousness by attacking references individually where, as here, the
rejections are based on combinations of references." See In re Keller, 642
F.2d 413, 426 (CCPA 1981). The Examiner has articulated reasoning with a
rational underpinning for why a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time
of the invention would combine Lankford and Rakib. (Final Act. 8-9;
Ans. 5.) See KSR Int'! Co., v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415, 418 (2007).
Moreover, as discussed above, the IP encapsulation module (packet
formatter 280 of Lankford) can encapsulate the same transport stream signal
(from the same tuner/demodulator) for different displays (e.g., TVs 60
and 70). Therefore, the IP encapsulated signal and the decoded version of
the IP encapsulated signal are part of the same network. Moreover, we agree
with the Examiner's finding that "one of ordinary skill in the art [would]
modify the system of Lankford [to include] a decoder module [to decode one
of the two encapsulated transport stream signals from packet formatter 280
of Lankford] to form an analog signal as taught by Rakib to provide the
MPEG decompression process where the data is decompressed prior to
conversion to a format which can be displayed." (Final Act. at 8-9.)
Argument Three
Sheppard Does Not Disclose Communicating an IP Encapsulated Signal
and an Decoded IP Encapsulated Signal to Devices in the Same Network
The Examiner finds:
Lankford and Rakib are silent with [regard to a] modulator
modulating the analog signal[, taught by Rakib,] and
communicating the modulated signal to a television tuner;
Sheppard teaches modulator modulating the analog signal and
communicating the modulated signal to a second television
tuner;
7
Appeal2015-005055
Application 11/930,745
it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at
the time the invention was made to include[ a] modulator [that]
is connected after IP decoder of Lankford and Rakib for
modulating the analog signal and communicating the modulated
signal to a second television tuner as taught by Sheppard to
provide a
(Final Act. 9-10.)
Appellants, however, argue:
Regardless of whether Sheppard discloses these features,
Sheppard, like Lankford and Rakib, fails to disclose
communicating a signal (or IP encapsulated signal) and a
decoded version of the signal via the same network respectively
to a device controlling a display and a television tuner, where the
signal and the decoded version of the signal are based on the
same transport stream signal generated by a single demodulator.
(App. Br. 10, emphasis added.) Specifically, according to Appellants,
The single path provided by the combination of references is
incapable of as claimed: communicating from a receiving unit an
IP encapsulated signal (or coded signal) ... and communicating
from the receiving unit an analog signal (or a decoded version of
the IP encapsulated signal) to a television tuner via the same
network.
(Reply 9.)
Again, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred. See In re Keller,
642 F.2d at 426. Additionally, the Examiner has articulated reasoning with a
rational underpinning for why a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time
of the invention would combine Lankford, Rakib, and Sheppard. (Final
Act. 9-10; Ans. 6-7.) See KSR, 550 U.S. at 415, 418. Again, as discussed
above, the IP encapsulated signal and the decoded version of the IP
encapsulated signal are part of the same network.
8
Appeal2015-005055
Application 11/930,745
For the foregoing reasons, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in
rejecting claim 1 such that we sustain the 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection of
claim 1. Appellants do not make any separate, substantive patentability
arguments regarding independent claims 15 and 19 and dependent claims 2-
14, 16-18 and 20-25, but instead rely solely on their arguments with respect
to claim 1. Therefore, we also sustain the 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejections of
claims 2-25.
DECISION
We affirm the decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1-25.
AFFIRMED
9