Ex Parte Ramsdell et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 21, 2016

14033585 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 21, 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.
14/033,585 09/23/2013 Scott W. Ramsdell TWC07-18C 5634
20987 7590 12/23/2016
VOLENTINE & WHITT PLLC
ONE FREEDOM SQUARE
11951 FREEDOM DRIVE, SUITE 1300
RESTON, VA 20190
EXAMINER
HICKS, CHARLES N
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2424
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/23/2016 ELECTRONIC
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.
Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the
following e-mail address(es):
cjohnson @ volentine. com
aloomis @ volentine.com
iplaw @ volentine. com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte SCOTT W. RAMSDELL and CHRIS A. CHOLAS
Appeal 2016-004578
Application 14/033,585
Technology Center 2400
Before BRADLEY W. BAUMEISTER, JOSEPH P. LENTIVECH, and
DAVID J. CUTITTAII, Administrative Patent Judges.
BAUMEISTER, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 1—20. App. Br. 5.1 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b). We reverse.
1 Rather than repeat the Examiner’s positions and Appellants’ arguments in
their entirety, we refer to the following documents for their respective
details: the Final Action mailed April 21, 2015 (“Final Act.”); the Advisory
Action mailed July 9, 2015; the Appeal Brief filed September 21, 2015
(“App. Br.”); the Examiner’s Answer mailed January 25, 2016 (“Ans.”); and
the Reply Brief filed March 25, 2016 (“Reply Br.”).
Appeal 2016-004578
Application 14/033,585
STATEMENT OF CASE
Appellants describe the present invention as follows:
A system for gradually implementing network services to
end users includes substantially redundant first and second
control networks, connectable to the end users through a routable
communications network. The first control network provides a
first service capability to all the end users. The second control
network provides a second service capability to a first portion of
the end users, the second service capability replacing the first
service capability of the first portion of the end users. The second
control network subsequently provides the second service
capability to a second portion of the end users, while continuing
to provide the second service capability to the first portion, the
second service capability replacing the first service capability of
the second portion of the end users. The second service
capability provided to the second portion of the end users may
include revisions based on feedback from the first portion of end
users.
Abstract.
Independent claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the appealed
claims:
1. A method for gradually implementing network service
capabilities to a plurality of end users through a first control
network and a second control network, each of the first and
second control networks being connectable to the plurality of end
users via a communications network, the method comprising:
providing a first service capability to the plurality of end
users through the first control network;
subsequently providing a second service capability to a
first testing portion of the plurality of end users through the
second control network, the second service capability replacing
the first service capability of the first testing portion of the
plurality of end users; and
subsequently providing the second service capability to a
second testing portion of the plurality of end users, in addition to
2
Appeal 2016-004578
Application 14/033,585
the first testing portion, through the second control network,
while continuing to provide the first service capability to
remaining end users of the plurality of end users through the first
control network, the second service capability replacing the first
service capability of the second testing portion of the plurality of
end users.
Claims 1—20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over
Poli (US 2002/0194594 Al; published Dec. 19, 2002) in view of Daruwalla
(US 6,839,829 Bl; issued Jan. 4, 2005).
We review the appealed rejections for error based upon the issues
identified by Appellants, and in light of the arguments and evidence
produced thereon. Ex parte Frye, 94 USPQ2d 1072, 1075 (BPAI 2010)
(precedential).
ARGUMENTS
The Examiner finds Poli discloses a method for gradually
implementing network service capabilities to a plurality of end users through
a first and second control network, wherein the second control network is
substantially redundant to the first control network. Ans. 3 (citing Poli 120;
FIGs. 1 4). The Examiner finds that Poli is silent in regard to the last two
limitations of claim 1—
subsequently providing a second service capability to a first
testing portion of the plurality of end users through the second
control network, the second service capability replacing the first
service capability of the first testing portion of the plurality of
end users; and
subsequently providing the second service capability to a
second testing portion of the plurality of end users, in addition to
the first testing portion, through the second control network,
while continuing to provide the first service capability to
3
Appeal 2016-004578
Application 14/033,585
remaining end users of the plurality of end users through the first
control network, the second service capability replacing the first
service capability of the second testing portion of the plurality of
end users.
Ans. 3.
The Examiner finds that Daruwalla teaches these last two limitations
of claim 1. Ans. 3^4 (citing Daruwalla col. 24,11.8—22, 35—47; FIGs. 4—5).
The Examiner further sets forth reasons for concluding that combining the
references’ teachings would have been obvious. Id. at 4.
Appellants argue, inter alia, that
POLI discloses only one control network (e.g., television system
600 with national control 500 in FIG. 4 or network 200 with
message source 100 in FIG. 1). The one control network is able
to direct message envelopes (encasing broadcast messages) to
various subsets of set-top terminals. That is, although the
destinations of the message envelopes may differ, they are all
provided via the one control network. See, e.g., paras. [0017],
[0020]. Accordingly, POFI does not teach first and second
control networks, where each of the first and second control
networks is connectable to the plurality of end users, as recited
in by claim 1.
App. Br. 7-8.
Appellants further expound upon this argument:
POFI discloses only a single network for accessing the same
plurality of end users (terminals 520A—550A to terminals 520N
to 550N in FIG. 4 or Clients 120A—150A to Clients 120N to
150N in FIG. 1). Although the single network may selectively
access different subsets of end users (e.g., via headends 510A—
510N in FIG. 4 or interim processing points 110A— 110N), it is
still one network, not multiple (e.g., first and second) networks.
Id. at 8.
4
Appeal 2016-004578
Application 14/033,585
ANALYSIS
We agree with at least those arguments of Appellants that are set forth
above. The Examiner has not established that Poli teaches redundant first
and second networks, wherein each network provides services to the same
plurality of end users. Furthermore, the Examiner does not rely upon
Daruwalla additionally for teaching this claim limitation. See, e.g., Ans. 2—
4. Accordingly, Appellants persuade us of error in the obviousness rejection
of independent claim 1, as well as claims 2—9, which depend from claim 1.
Independent claims 11 and 19—the only other independent claims on
appeal—also set forth similar requirements of first and second control
networks wherein each network is configured to interface with each of the
plurality of end users. Accordingly, we are likewise persuaded of error in
the obviousness rejection of these claims, as well as claims 12—18 and 20,
which depend from claims 11 and 19.
DECISION
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1—20 is reversed.
REVERSED
5