Ex Parte Rakib

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Nov 18, 2011

09898728 (B.P.A.I. Nov. 18, 2011)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte SELIM SHLOMO RAKIB
_____________

Appeal 2009-008819
Application 09/898,728
Technology Center 2400
____________

Before THOMAS S. HAHN, ELENI MANTIS MERCADER, and
BRADLEY W. BAUMEISTER, Administrative Patent Judges.

MANTIS MERCADER, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2009-008819
Application 09/898,728

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the final rejection of
claims 1-9. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm-in-part.

INVENTION
Appellant’s claimed invention is directed to a remote 30 in customer
premises #1 which issues commands to request services from a headend 12,
wherein the resulting digital data transmitted by the headend 12 to gateway
10 arrives on a particular logical channel (Fig. 1; Spec. 9).
Claims 1 and 3, reproduced below, are representative of the subject
matter on appeal.
1. A system comprising:
one or more transmission mediums for carrying at least upstream and
downstream digital data traffic;
a headend circuit coupled to all said transmission mediums and
containing or coupled to one or more server computers and/or other circuits
to provide at least digital data services to a plurality of customers;
one or more local area networks and/or dedicated LAN segments or
data paths at each customer premises;
one or more peripheral devices at each customer premises coupled to
said one or more local area networks and/or dedicated LAN segments or
dedicated data paths, said one or more peripheral devices including a non-
television component;
a plurality of gateway means at customer premises locations and
coupled to all said transmission mediums and coupled to said one or more
local area networks, for receiving, demodulating and detecting digital data
transmitted to one or more of said peripherals from said headend circuit and
to packetize and route said data to the appropriate peripheral device via said
one or more local area networks or one or more ports directly connected by
dedicated lines or LAN segments to one or more peripherals, and for
managing traffic and bandwidth and rate shaping if necessary to match the
Appeal 2009-008819
Application 09/898,728

3
data rate of data to be transmitted over a data path to the available bandwidth
on that data path; and
a remote control means at one or more customer premises and, at each
premises, coupled by wireless digital data communication circuitry to said
gateway or to said gateway through a peripheral device, for issuing
commands to said headend circuit through said gateway and one or more
transmission mediums to provide data to said one or more peripherals
through said one or more transmission mediums and said gateway.

3. A system comprising:
one or more transmission mediums for carrying at least upstream and
downstream digital data traffic;
a headend circuit coupled to all said transmission mediums and
containing or coupled to one or more server computers and/or other circuits
to provide at least digital data services to a plurality of customers, and
including rate shaping circuitry to alter the data rate of data transmitted on or
received from said transmission mediums;
one or more local area networks or digital data buses at each customer
premises;
one or more peripheral devices including at least one non-television
component at each customer premises coupled to said one or more local area
networks or buses;
at least one cable modem at each customer premises location, said
cable modem coupled to all said transmission mediums and coupled to said
one or more peripherals via said local area networks or buses; and
a remote control coupled to said headend through said cable modem
or coupled to said headend through one or more of said peripherals coupled
to said cable modem for issuing wireless commands that get routed by said
cable modem to said headend to invoke services provided by said headend
circuit.

THE REJECTION
The Examiner relies upon the following as evidence of
unpatentability:
Huang US 6,437,836 B1 Aug. 20, 2002
Ellis US 2005/0028208 A1 Feb. 3, 2005
Appeal 2009-008819
Application 09/898,728

4
The following rejection is before us for review:
The Examiner rejected claims 1-9 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Ellis in view of Huang.

ISSUES
The pivotal issues are whether:
1. the Examiner erred in finding that Ellis teaches “a remote control
means at one or more customer premises . . . coupled by wireless
digital data communication circuitry to said gateway” as recited in
independent claim 1 (emphases added); and
2. the Examiner erred in finding that Ellis teaches “a remote control
. . . for issuing wireless commands that get routed by said cable
modem” as recited in claim 3.

ANALYSIS
Claims 1, 2, and 5-9
Appellant argues (App. Br. 19) that Ellis fails to disclose “a remote
control means at one or more customer premises . . . coupled by wireless
digital data communication circuitry to said gateway” as recited in
independent claim 1 (emphases added). Appellant in particular argues that
Ellis’s remote control means (i.e., access device 24) is not located at the
customer premises, but rather at a remote location (i.e., at work) (citing
Ellis’s ¶ [0099]) which is remote from the customer premises (App. Br. 18-
19).
We agree. The Examiner failed to address (Ans. 15-16) how the
remote program guide access device 24, which the Examiner identified in
Appeal 2009-008819
Application 09/898,728

5
the Final Rejection to be the remote control means (Ans. 5), was interpreted
to be located at the customer premises. Instead, the Examiner, in the
Answer, changes the interpretation of the remote control means to control 40
without any showing that such a remote control issues commands to the
headend circuit through the gateway as required by claim 1 (see also Reply
Br. 2).
Accordingly, we will reverse the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1 and
the rejection of independent claims 5, 6, and 8, which recite similar
limitations, as well as the rejection of dependent claims 2, 7, and 9.
Claims 3 and 4
At the outset, we note that independent claim 3 does not recite a
remote control at the customer premises as recited in independent claims 1,
5, 6, and 8. Appellant argues (App. Br. 20), with respect to claim 3, that
according to Ellis’s Figure 2a, there is no need to route commands to the
headend in order to achieve synchronization.
The Examiner responded (Ans. 17) that Ellis teaches (Fig. 14, step
(1205)) the exchange of one or more commands. The Examiner explained
that this is done to establish a remote access link between the remote access
interactive television program guide and the local interactive program guide
(Ans. 17). Appellant has not responded to the Examiner’s finding.
We find the Examiner’s finding reasonable. Accordingly, we will
affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claim 3 and its dependent claim 4.

Appeal 2009-008819
Application 09/898,728

6
CONCLUSIONS
1. The Examiner erred in finding that Ellis teaches “a remote control
means at one or more customer premises . . . coupled by wireless
digital data communication circuitry to said gateway” as recited in
independent claim 1 (emphases added).
2. The Examiner did not err in finding that Ellis teaches “a remote
control . . . for issuing wireless commands that get routed by said
cable modem” as recited in claim 3.

ORDER
The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1, 2, and 5-9 is reversed.
The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 3 and 4 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-IN-PART

babc