Ex Parte Ribordy et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 22, 2016

12264435 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 22, 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.
12/264,435 11/04/2008 Douglas E. Ribordy PD-208049 1157
20991 7590 08/22/2016
THE DIRECTV GROUP, INC.
PATENT DOCKET ADMINISTRATION
CA / LA1 / A109
2230 E. IMPERIAL HIGHWAY
EL SEGUNDO, CA 90245
EXAMINER
JEBARI, MOHAMMED
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2482
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/22/2016 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 DOUGLAS E. RIBORDY and DANIEL M. MINER1
____________________

Appeal 2015-002486
Application 12/264,435
Technology Center 2400
____________________

Before MICHAEL J. STRAUSS, DANIEL N. FISHMAN, and
JAMES W. DEJMEK, Administrative Patent Judges.

DEJMEK, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a Final Rejection of
claims 1–8, 10, 11, 13, and 16–28. Claims 9, 12, 14, and 15 have been
canceled. App. Br. 2. We have jurisdiction over the remaining pending
claims under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.

1 Appellants identify The DIRECTV Group, Inc. as the real party in interest.
App. Br. 2.
Appeal 2015-002486
Application 12/264,435

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
Appellants’ invention is directed to “encoding a channel signal into
multiple encoding formats.” Spec. ¶ 1. As an example, a module can output
two different encoded channel signals (e.g., MPEG2 and MPEG4 format).
Spec. ¶¶ 7, 90. In a disclosed embodiment, the two different encoded
channel signals may be multiplexed together and provided, for example, to
an uplink site. Spec. ¶ 104. According to the Specification, by providing a
multiplexed signal (comprising a signal encoded using two different formats,
such as standard definition (MPEG2) or high-definition (MPEG4)), a system
may provide a single transmission to a plurality of user devices, wherein
different user devices may only be capable of receiving (i.e., processing) one
of the encoded formats. Spec. ¶ 104.
Claim 1 is representative of the subject matter on appeal and is
reproduced below with the disputed limitations emphasized in italics:
1. A method comprising:
receiving a first data signal at a local collection facility by a
receiving circuit module, wherein the receiving circuit module is in a
housing at the local collection facility;
encoding a second data signal, via the receiving circuit module
and within the housing, to form a first encoded signal having a first
format based on the first data signal;
via the receiving circuit module, encoding the second data signal
within the housing to form a second encoded signal having a second
format different than the first format;
multiplexing the first encoded signal and the second encoded
signal at a first multiplexer and within the housing to form a first
multiplexed signal;
generating an output signal at the housing based on the first
multiplexed signal;
Appeal 2015-002486
Application 12/264,435

3
communicating the output signal from the receiving circuit
module to a second multiplexer; and
communicating an output of the second multiplexer from the
local collection facility to an Internet Protocol network.

The Examiner’s Rejections
1. Claims 1–8, 10, 11, 16–19, 21, and 26 stand rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Yatabe et al. (US 2004/0234145
A1; Nov. 25, 2004) (“Yatabe”) and Wu et al. (US 7,602,846 B1; Oct. 13,
2009) (“Wu”). Final Act. 4–8.
2. Claims 13 and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Yatabe, Wu, and Oger et al. (US 8,139,517 B2;
Mar. 20, 2012) (“Oger”). Final Act. 8–9.
3. Claims 22–24, 27, and 28 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Yatabe, Wu, and Yogeshwar et al. (US
5,684,714; Nov. 4, 1997) (“Yogeshwar”). Final Act. 9–10.
4. Claim 25 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Yatabe, Wu, Shimizu (US 2003/0095554 A1; May 22,
2003), and Wong (US 2004/0001478 A1; Jan. 1, 2004). Final Act. 10.

Issues on Appeal
1. Did the Examiner err in finding the combination of Yatabe and
Wu teaches or suggests “multiplexing the first encoded signal and the
second encoded signal at a first multiplexer and within the housing to form a
first multiplexed signal,” as recited in claim 1?
2. Did the Examiner err in finding the combination of Yatabe and
Wu teaches or suggests “generating an output signal at the housing based on
Appeal 2015-002486
Application 12/264,435

4
the first multiplexed signal; [and] communicating the output signal from the
receiving circuit module to a second multiplexer,” as recited in claim 1?

ANALYSIS2
Appellants contend the Examiner erred in finding Yatabe teaches or
suggests “encoding one signal to form two different encoded signals having
different formats and multiplexing those two different encoded signals to
form a multiplexed signal.” App. Br. 8 (emphases omitted); Reply Br. 2–4.
Rather, Appellants contend Yatabe teaches multiplexing an MPEG2
encoding with digital speech data to form an MPEG2 stream, or, similarly,
multiplexing MPEG4 encodings with digital speech to form an MPEG4
stream. App. Br. 7–8 (citing Yatabe ¶ 26). Thus, Appellants assert, the
signals multiplexed together in Yatabe are encoded versions of different
signals (e.g., video and audio) and not two different encoded formats of the
same signal. App. Br. 8; Reply Br. 3.
We are unpersuaded of Examiner error. As the Examiner explains,
Yatabe teaches an encoder with two parallel paths for encoding an input
picture stream. Ans. 11 (citing Yatabe Figs. 1, 2). Yatabe teaches the
encoding of the picture stream into an encoded MPEG2 stream and into an
encoded MPEG4 stream may be done simultaneously. Yatabe ¶ 26. The
Examiner finds, and we agree, the encoded MPEG2 and MPEG4 streams of
Yatabe each encode the same input picture stream and correspond to the

2 Throughout this Decision, we have considered the Appeal Brief, filed
July 3, 2014 (“App. Br.”); the Reply Brief, filed December 10, 2014 (“Reply
Br.”); the Examiner’s Answer, mailed on October 10, 2014 (“Ans.”); and the
Final Office Action (“Final Act.”), mailed on February 5, 2014, from which
this Appeal is taken.
Appeal 2015-002486
Application 12/264,435

5
claimed first encoded signal (e.g., MPEG2 stream) and second encoded
signal (e.g., MPEG4 stream). Ans. 11–12. The Examiner further finds, and
we agree, Yatabe teaches the output from the encoders is input to a
multiplexer. Ans. 12 (citing Yatabe Fig. 4). Figure 4 of Yatabe is
illustrative and is reproduced below:

Figure 4 of Yatabe illustrates a video camera using a picture encoding
apparatus. Yatabe ¶ 26. The Examiner finds, and we agree, Yatabe teaches
the encoded signals (i.e., a first encoded signal encoded (MPEG2 stream), a
second encoded signal (MPEG4 stream), and an encoded speech signal
(encoded by Speech Encoder 530)) are input to multiplexer 540, which
multiplexes the encoded signals and stores the multiplexed stream in
recording medium 550. Ans. 12 (citing Yatabe ¶ 26, Fig. 4). The Examiner
explains:
Appeal 2015-002486
Application 12/264,435

6
Since, the multiplexer 540 multiplexes the first encoded signal
encoded by MPEG2 encoder, the second encoded signal encoded
by MPEG4 encoder, and the speech signal encoded by encoder
530 into a single stream; therefore, the multiplexer 540
multiplexes the first encoded signal and the second encoded
signal to form a first multiplexed signal.
Ans. 12. We agree with the Examiner’s findings and adopt them as our own.
Additionally, Appellants contend the combination of Yatabe and Wu
fails to teach or suggest “generating an output signal . . . based on the first
multiplexed signal [and] communicating the output signal . . . to a second
multiplexer.” App. Br. 10; Reply Br. 4–5. In particular, Appellants assert
Wu:
[T]eaches encoding a program to form a first compressed version
of the program, transmitting the first compressed version of the
program to a receiving site, transcoding the first compressed
version to form a second compressed version of the program, and
multiplexing the second compressed version of the program with
one or more other programs to form a multiplexed set of
programs.
App. Br. 12. Appellants argue, therefore, the output signal communicated to
a second multiplexer in Wu, as relied on by the Examiner, is not “based on a
first multiplexed signal formed by multiplexing two encoded signals having
different formats, where the two encoded signals are both formed by
encoding one data signal.” App. Br. 12 (emphasis omitted).
Non-obviousness cannot be established by attacking references
individually where, as here, the ground of unpatentability is based upon the
teachings of a combination of references. In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 426
(CCPA 1981). Rather, the test for obviousness is whether the combination
of references, taken as a whole, would have suggested the patentee’s
Appeal 2015-002486
Application 12/264,435

7
invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art. In re Merck & Co.,
Inc., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
We are not persuaded of Examiner error because Appellants’
arguments are not responsive to the Examiner’s rejection and attack the
references separately, whereas the Examiner’s rejection relies on the
combined teachings of Yatabe and Wu. Specifically, the Examiner finds,
and we agree (see supra), Yatabe teaches the claimed first multiplexed
signal. See Final Act. 4–5. The Examiner finds, and Appellants concede,
Wu teaches, inter alia, communicating an output signal to a multiplexer.
Final Act. 5 (citing Wu Fig. 3); App. Br. 11. The Examiner finds, inter alia,
Wu’s “output signal could be the output signal taught by [Yatabe], that is
generated based on a first multiplexed signal formed by multiplexing two
encoded signals having different formats, where the two encoded signals are
both formed by encoding one data signal.” Ans. 13–14. The Examiner
further explains, and we agree,
[I]t would have been obvious for one having skill in the art at the
time of invention to combine the teachings of Yatabe and Wu to
. . . to mix the output signal with one or more other local
programs and have an updated signal that could reach the
majority of users.
Final Act. 6; Ans. 14. Thus, the Examiner relies on the combined teaching
of Yatabe and Wu to teach or suggest the contested limitation.
Additionally, we do not agree with Appellants that the Examiner’s
statement what Wu’s output signal “could be” (Ans. 13–14) is “unsupported
and lacks the reasoning required for an obviousness rejection.” Reply Br. 5.
Instead, we find the Examiner has set forth articulated reasoning with
rational underpinning in support of the proposed combination.
See Final Act. 6; see also KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007).
Appeal 2015-002486
Application 12/264,435

8
For the reasons discussed supra, we are unpersuaded of Examiner
error. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of independent
claim 1 and, for similar reasons, the rejection of independent claim 16,
which recites similar limitations and which was not argued separately.
Additionally, we sustain the Examiner’s rejections of dependent claims 2–8,
10, 11, 13, and 17–28, which were not argued separately. See App. Br. 13–
15.

DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–8, 10, 11, 13,
and 16–28.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.50(f).

AFFIRMED