Ex Parte Pham et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardSep 22, 201511853737 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 22, 2015) Copy Citation 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. 11/853,737 09/11/2007 Hoang D. Pham PD-207083 3559 20991 7590 09/22/2015 THE DIRECTV GROUP, INC. PATENT DOCKET ADMINISTRATION CA / LA1 / A109 2230 E. IMPERIAL HIGHWAY EL SEGUNDO, CA 90245 EXAMINER KURIEN, CHRISTEN A ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2427 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 09/22/2015 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 HOANG D. PHAM and JEANET C. MIKA ____________________ Appeal 2013-007522 Application 11/853,737 Technology Center 2400 ____________________ Before MICHAEL J. STRAUSS, CHRISTA P. ZADO, and JESSICA C. KAISER, Administrative Patent Judges. STRAUSS, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2013-007522 Application 11/853,737 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a rejection of claims 1–24. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We reverse. THE INVENTION The claims are directed to monitoring a receiving circuit module and controlling switching to a back-up receiving circuit module at a local collection facility from a remote facility. Spec. 31 (Abstract). Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 1. A method of forming an output signal comprising: providing a plurality of primary receiving circuit modules at a local collection facility, said plurality of receiving circuit modules comprising a first receiving circuit module; receiving a plurality of channel signals at the local collection facility, said plurality of channel signals having a first channel signal; communicating the first channel signal to the first receiving circuit module to form a first encoded signal at a first encoder; routing the first encoded signal from the local collection facility to a multiplexer of a remote facility through a network; generating an output signal at the remote facility in response to the first signal; generating a monitoring signal from a first receiving circuit module at a monitoring system; communicating the monitoring signal of the first receiving circuit module to a monitoring system; providing a back-up receiving circuit module at the local collection facility; routing the first channel signal to the back-up receiving circuit module to form a second encoded signal at a second encoder; monitoring the second encoded signal; Appeal 2013-007522 Application 11/853,737 3 in response to the second encoded signal, routing the second encoded signal through a router at the local collection facility to the multiplexer at the remote facility; and forming the output signal in response to the second encoded signal. App. Br. 23. REFERENCES The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on appeal is: Kaul Rowe US 5,933,123 US 2001/0003846 A1 Aug. 3, 1999 June 14, 2001 Hodge Mimura US 2002/0007494 A1 US 6,557,031 B1 Jan. 17, 2002 Apr. 29, 2003 Summers US 2003/0217362 A1 Nov. 20, 2003 Sanders Wang US 2006/0018254 A1 US 2007/0079351 A1 Jan. 26, 2006 Apr. 5, 2007 REJECTIONS The Examiner made the following rejections: Claims 1–6, 8–11, 16–18, and 22 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Mimura, Rowe, Hodge, and Sanders. Final Act. 4–12. Claims 7, 23, and 24 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Mimura, Rowe, Hodge, Sanders, and Summers. Final Act. 12–14. Claims 12, 13, and 19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Mimura, Rowe, Hodge, Sanders, and Kaul. Final Act. 14–15. Appeal 2013-007522 Application 11/853,737 4 Claims 14, 15, 20, and 21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Mimura, Rowe, Hodge, Sanders, and Wang. Final Act. 15–17. APPELLANTS’ CONTENTION1 “Rowe is silent as to routing the first encoded signal from the local facility to a multiplexer of a remote facility through a network as claim 1 recites.” App. Br. 11 (emphasis omitted). ANALYSIS We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellants’ arguments the Examiner has erred in rejecting independent claims 1 and 16 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Mimura, Rowe, Hodge, and Sanders. We agree with Appellants’ conclusions as to this rejection of the claims. Appellants contend Rowe fails to disclose “routing the first encoded signal from the local collection facility to a multiplexer of a remote facility through a network” as required by claim 1. App. Br. 10–11 (emphasis omitted). The Examiner responds by finding the disputed limitation is taught by Rowe, citing Figures 6 and 15 and paragraphs 130 and 248. Ans. 5. The Examiner explains “the combination of references teaches the structure of local and remote facilities and being able to send signals between the units. Encoding at a local collection facility to a multiplexer of a remote collection facility is not novel.” Ans. 56. Appellants reply, arguing, although Rowe’s remote location “enables ‘an operator to verify the contents of the transmitted data stream at the remote location’” (Reply Br. 4 1 We note Appellants raise additional contentions of error, but we do not reach them as our resolution of this contention is dispositive of the appealed rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). Appeal 2013-007522 Application 11/853,737 5 (citing Rowe, paragraph 248)), there is no teaching of the “communication of signals from one facility to another facility” as well as “the facilities where encoders and multiplexers are implemented [as required by claim 1]” (id.). Appellants further argue the Examiner’s finding that encoding at a local collection facility and transmitting encoded signals to a multiplexer of a remote collection facility is not novel is unsupported by the cited references. Reply Br. 5. According to Appellants, rather than an encoder at a local facility and a multiplexer at a remote facility, “Rowe teaches that encoding and multiplexing is performed at one facility prior to being transferred elsewhere via satellite uplink.” Reply 5. We agree with Appellants. Figure 15 of Rowe depicts video and audio encoders directly connected to multiplexers 3730 with no indication the encoders and multiplexers are located at different facilities, i.e., respective local and remote facilities. In contrast, Rowe’s multiplexers communicate via satellite distribution system 3704 with Set Top Data Stream Verification System 3706, only the latter being disclosed as located at a remote location so as to “enable an operator to verify the contents of the transmitted data steam at the remote location.” Rowe ¶ 248. However, there is no indication that any multiplexers are to be found at such remote location. Therefore, in the absence of sufficient evidence or reasoning in support of the Examiner’s finding that “[e]ncoding at a local collection facility to a multiplexer of a remote collection facility is not novel” (Ans. 6), we agree with Appellants the cited prior art fails to teach or suggest the disputed limitation of routing the first encoded signal from the local collection facility to a multiplexer of a remote facility through a network. Appeal 2013-007522 Application 11/853,737 6 Because we agree with at least one of the arguments advanced by Appellants, we need not reach the merits of Appellants’ other arguments. Therefore, for the reasons supra, we do not sustain the rejection of independent claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Mimura, Rowe, Hodge, and Sanders and, for the same reason, we do not sustain the rejection of independent claim 16 which includes substantially the same limitation, or the rejection of dependent claims 2–6, 8–11, 17, 18, and 22. Furthermore, we do not sustain the rejections of claims 7, 12–15, 19–21, 23, and 24 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as the Examiner’s applications of the Summers, Kaul, and Wang references fail to cure the deficiency in the base rejection addressed supra. DECISION The Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–24 is reversed. REVERSED llw Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation