Ex Parte Puputti

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 25, 2012

09989301 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 25, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
________________

Ex parte MATTI PUPUTTI
________________

Appeal 2011-005087
Application 09/989,301
Technology Center 2400
________________

Before MAHSHID D. SAADAT, JOHNNY A. KUMAR, and
LARRY J. HUME, Administrative Patent Judges.

HUME, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the final
rejection of claims 57-76. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
Appeal 2011-005087
Application 09/989,301

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
1

The Invention
“The present invention relates to broadcasting digital video and audio
data that are multiplexed after compression coding, and more particularly to
broadcasting such data dynamically over a plurality of transport streams.”
Spec. p. 2, ll. 6-8, “Field of the Invention”.
Exemplary Claim
Exemplary independent claim 57 reads as follows (emphasis added to
disputed limitation):
57. A method, comprising:
transmitting a network information table, wherein the
network information table contains a linkage to a control
channel; and
transmitting the control channel, wherein the control
channel contains access information corresponding to one or
more internet protocol based services.

1
Throughout this Decision, we refer to the Appeal Brief (App. Br.) filed
Jul. 23, 2010; the Reply Brief (Reply Br.) filed Jan. 10, 2011; the originally-
filed Specification (Spec.) filed Nov. 19, 2001; the Final Office Action
(FOA) mailed Aug. 3, 2009; and the Examiner’s Answer (Ans.) mailed Nov.
10, 2010.
Appeal 2011-005087
Application 09/989,301

3
Prior Art
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Levitan US 2002/0147769 A1 Oct. 10, 2002 (filed Apr. 10, 2001)
Kessler US 6,741,288 B1 May 25, 2004 (filed Jul. 13, 2000)
Rejection on Appeal
The Examiner has rejected claims 57-76 under 35 U.S.C § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Kessler in view of Levitan. (Ans. 3-5).
GROUPING OF CLAIMS
Based upon Appellant’s arguments directed to the above-highlighted
limitations that are common to all claims on appeal, we select representative
method claim 57 to decide this appeal. (See App. Br. 5-8). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(l)(vii).
We have only considered those arguments that Appellant actually
raised in the Briefs. Arguments Appellant could have made but chose not to
make in the Briefs have not been considered and are deemed to be waived.
ISSUES
Appellant’s Contentions
Appellant contends that a person with skill in the art would
understand that the PSIP tables disclosed in Kessler provide information
about terrestrial broadcast and cable broadcast streams which is in “stark
Appeal 2011-005087
Application 09/989,301

4
contrast” to Appellant’s claimed network information table (NIT) that
includes tuning information for accessing Internet protocol based services
rather than broadcast services, and that Kessler is devoid of any teaching or
suggestion of Internet protocol based services. (App. Br. 7).
Appellant further contends that the fact that DTV control module 18
in Fig. 1 of Kessler may optionally be connected to the Internet does not, in
any way, teach or suggest that Kessler’s system is concerned with accessing
internet protocol based services. The only reasonable assumption about
Kessler’s disclosure that control module 18 “may also be connected to a
network such as the Internet” is that the Internet is an alternative way for the
command module 18 to receive commands, such as to select a desired
program. There “is absolutely no suggestion that the connection to the
Internet is for the purpose of accessing internet protocol based services, as
opposed to the terrestrial broadcast and cable broadcast streams. (App. Br.
6-7).
Appellant goes on to contend that
There is no evidence of record that would have led the skilled
artisan to modify Kessler in any manner to provide access to
such internet protocol based services, especially in view of the
fact that Kessler discloses only terrestrial broadcast and
cable broadcast streams . . . [such that] nothing would have
suggested to the artisan modifying Kessler to provide for
accessing internet protocol based services, let alone
providing such services in the manner claims [sic] . . . .
(App. Br. 7, emphasis in original).
Appeal 2011-005087
Application 09/989,301

5
Appellant further contends that “[t]he teachings of Levitan are not
germane to the terrestrial broadcast and cable broadcast streams of
Kessler and, therefore, the combination of Kessler and Levitan is improper,
such combination being made only through the exercise of impermissible
hindsight . . . .” (App. Br. 7, emphasis in original).
In addition, Appellant contends:
[T]he claimed feature of a “linkage to a control channel” is
not taught by the applied references. The linkage disclosed
by Kessler, the reference allegedly disclosing the claimed
feature, only enables control module 18 to acquire control
structure 46 from memory 26 to enable demultiplexer 16 to
receive the desired broadcast program, while ignoring other
received programs. Such a teaching has no relevance to “a
linkage to a control channel . . . the control channel contains
access information corresponding to one or more internet
protocol based services,” as claimed. Not only are the
linkages in Kessler different from those claimed, but the
linkage in Kessler provides for a filtering function in
ignoring those programs not selected, while the instant
claims provide for “access information” corresponding to IP
based services.
App. Br. 7-8.
Next, Appellant contends that, “Kessler describes two separate tables,
one including a network information table and the other including a ‘control
channel’ . . . [and] contrary to the Examiner’s conclusion, there is no linkage
between the control channel of one transmitted table and the network
information table of a separately transmitted table.” (Reply Br. 3).
Finally, Appellant contends that, “[c]ontrary to the Examiner’s
assertion, at page 8 of the Answer, there is no evidence of record that the
Appeal 2011-005087
Application 09/989,301

6
PAT of Kessler is linked to any network information table or that the PAT of
Kessler contains any access information corresponding to services.” (Reply
Br. 4).
Issue
Did the Examiner err in finding that the combination of Kessler and
Levitan teaches or suggests the features of “a network information table,
wherein the network information table contains a linkage to a control
channel . . . wherein the control channel contains access information
corresponding to one or more internet protocol based services,” as recited in
independent claim 57?
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellant’s
arguments that the Examiner has erred. We disagree with Appellant’s
conclusions with respect to claims 57-76, and we adopt as our own (1) the
findings and reasons set forth by the Examiner in the action from which this
appeal is taken and (2) the reasons and rebuttals set forth by the Examiner in
the Examiner’s Answer (Ans. 3-8) in response to Appellant’s Arguments
(App. Br. 5-8; Reply Br. 2-4). However, we highlight and address specific
findings and arguments regarding claim 57 for emphasis as follows.
We particularly concur with the conclusion reached by the Examiner
that Kessler in combination with Levitan teaches a method that includes,
inter alia, “. . . . a network information table, wherein the network
information table contains a linkage to a control channel . . . wherein the
control channel contains access information corresponding to one or more
Appeal 2011-005087
Application 09/989,301

7
internet protocol based services,” as recited in independent claim 57. (See
Ans. 3-8).
We further agree with the Examiner that Kessler teaches a Network
Information Table (NIT) found in Kessler’s Program and System
Information Protocol (PSIP) tables, with reference to the ATSP and MPEG
standards discussed by Kessler (e.g., see Kessler at col. 1:36 through col.
2:26). We also agree with the Examiner that Kessler’s NIT is linked to a
Program Association Table (PAT) and a Program Map Table (PMT) (Ans.
3-4, 7). We further find that Kessler teaches a linkage between the NIT and
the PAT which contains access information corresponding to services, and
which meets the limitation regarding “linkage [by the network information
table] to a control channel.” (Ans. 8).
In addition, we note that Appellant’s arguments (App. Br. 5-6; Reply.
Br. 2) focus on Kessler’s medium of transmission (i.e., “terrestrial broadcast
and cable broadcast streams”) compared to the claimed “access information
corresponding to one or more internet protocol based services,” and are not
commensurate with the scope of the claims.
Claim 57 does not preclude terrestrial broadcast streams, and we find
that accounting for the differences between terrestrial-based and IP-based
services are within the knowledge of a person with ordinary skill in the
telecommunications arts, particularly in view of Kessler’s teaching of the
permissive nature of standards (see Kessler at col. 1:58-65). We also find
that this distinction does not persuasively show that the Examiner erred in
combining the references in the manner set forth in the Answer, and that the
Examiner’s position is not contradictory to the teachings of Kessler. In
Appeal 2011-005087
Application 09/989,301

8
addition, we find that Kessler is not incompatible with Internet Protocol (IP)
transmission of data, particularly when claim 57 merely requires that “the
control channel contains access information corresponding to one or more
internet protocol based services.” In further support of the Examiner’s
position, we note that Kessler Fig. 1 and the related discussion (see Kessler
col. 4) teach that Kessler’s DTV Control Module 18 may be linked to the
Internet.
Accordingly, since Appellant has not presented convincing arguments
that the Examiner erred in either the findings of fact regarding the cited art
or in the proffered claim construction, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of
independent claim 57, as well as the rejection of claims 58-76 which fall
with claim 57.
CONCLUSIONS
1. The Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 57-76 as being
unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Kessler and Levitan.
2. Claims 57-76 are not patentable.
DECISION
The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 57-76 is affirmed.
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
ELD