Ex Parte Ribordy et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jul 24, 2015

11853742 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 24, 2015)

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.
11/853,742 09/11/2007 Douglas E. Ribordy PD-207085 3573
20991 7590 07/27/2015
THE DIRECTV GROUP, INC.
PATENT DOCKET ADMINISTRATION
CA / LA1 / A109
2230 E. IMPERIAL HIGHWAY
EL SEGUNDO, CA 90245
EXAMINER
TAYLOR, JOSHUA D
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2426
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/27/2015 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 DOUGLAS E. RIBORDY and DANIEL M. MINER1
____________________

Appeal 2013-005179
Application 11/853,742
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 rejection of claims
1–4, 6–12, and 20–25. Claims 5 and 13–19 have been canceled. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm-in-part.

1 Appellants identify The DIRECTV Group, Inc. as the real part in interest.
App. Br. 2.
Appeal 2013-005179
Application 11/853,742

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
Appellants’ invention is directed to “controlling a receiving system to
receive different types of signals from a remote location.” Spec. ¶ 6. In a
disclosed embodiment, a satellite television system is described wherein
different channels (e.g., high definition, standard definition, local channels)
may be received and collected at a remote site prior to uplinking a
consolidated signal to a satellite. Id. ¶¶ 24–30. As part of such an
embodiment, individual receiver modules may be monitored by a separate
monitoring system. Id. ¶¶ 40, 48.
Claims 1 and 20 are exemplary of the subject matter on appeal and are
reproduced below with the disputed limitations emphasized in italics:
1. A method comprising:
receiving a first receiving circuit module input signal at a
first receiver module of a receiving circuit module;
communicating the first receiving circuit module input
signal to an encoder of the receiving circuit module;
encoding the first receiving circuit module input signal
into an encoded first receiving circuit module signal at the
encoder;
generating an output signal at the receiving circuit
module corresponding to the encoded first receiving circuit
module signal;
generating a control signal from a monitoring system
located remotely from and monitoring the first receiver module
and a second receiver module;
communicating the control signal to the receiving circuit
module through a network connection;
Appeal 2013-005179
Application 11/853,742

3
receiving a second receiving circuit module input signal
at the second receiver module of the receiving circuit module;
communicating the second receiving circuit module input
signal to the encoder in response to the control signal;
encoding the second receiving circuit module input signal
to form an encoded second receiving circuit module signal;
changing the output signal of the receiving circuit
module to correspond to the encoded second receiving circuit
module signal in response to the control signal; and
communicating the output signal to a remote facility.

20. A receiving circuit module comprising:
a housing having a first receiver, an encoder coupled to
the first receiver generating a first encoded signal,
a second receiver coupled to the encoder generating a
second encoded signal, a serial digital input and an input-output
port disposed therein; and
a controller receiving a control signal through the input-
output port from a monitoring system, switching between the
first encoded signal, the second encoded signal and the serial
digital input in response to the control signal and generating an
output signal corresponding to the first encoded signal, the
second encoded signal or the serial digital input in response to
the control signal.

The Examiner’s Rejections
1. Claims 1, 4, 6–8, 10, 20, and 25 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Schiller et al. (US 5,499,046; Mar. 12,
1996) (“Schiller”) and Arsenault (US 2002/0150061 A1; Oct. 17, 2002).
Final Act. 2–7.
Appeal 2013-005179
Application 11/853,742

4
2. Claims 2, 3, 11, 12, and 21–24 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Schiller, Arsenault, and Gazdzinski
(US 2007/0094691 A1; Apr. 26, 2007). Final Act. 7–11.
3. Claim 9 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Schiller, Arsenault, and McMiller et al.
(US 2006/0050184 A1; Mar. 9, 2006) (“McMiller”). Final Act. 12.

Issues on Appeal
1. Did the Examiner err in finding the combination of Schiller and
Arsenault teaches or suggests a monitoring system monitoring first and
second receiver modules, as recited in claim 1?
2. Did the Examiner err in finding the combination of Schiller and
Arsenault teaches or suggests a housing that houses an encoder coupled to a
first receiver, a second receiver, and a serial digital input, as recited in claim
20?

ANALYSIS2
Independent Claim 1
Appellants contend “the combination of references cannot be read to
teach or otherwise suggest ‘generating a control signal from a monitoring
system located remotely from and monitoring the first receiver module and a
second receiver module.’” App. Br. 7. In particular, Appellants argue the

2 Throughout this opinion we have considered the Appeal Brief filed
October 2, 2012 (“App. Br.”), Reply Brief filed February 28, 2013 (“Reply
Br.”), the Examiner’s Answer mailed on December 28, 2012 (“Ans.”), and
the Office Action mailed on May 2, 2012 from which this Appeal is taken
(“Final Act.”).
Appeal 2013-005179
Application 11/853,742

5
controllers and schedulers of Schiller, replied upon by the Examiner, do not
monitor the distribution stations (which the Examiner finds as corresponding
to Appellants’ receiver modules). Id. at 8. For the reasons set forth infra,
we agree with Appellants’ argument.
In response, the Examiner explains that although “Schiller may not
explicitly use the word ‘monitor,’ the concept of monitoring is implied with
the descriptions of controlling, editing and modifying.” Ans. 7–8. Figure 3
from Schiller is illustrative and is reproduced below.

Figure 3 is a block diagram of a cable television distribution system.
Schiller, col. 3, ll. 32–37. The Examiner finds schedulers 13, 15, 17
correspond to the claimed monitoring system, and file distribution stations
7a and 7b correspond to the claimed first and second receiver modules,
respectively. Final Act. 3 (citing Schiller, col. 4, l. 5–col. 5, l. 9); Ans. 7–8.
Appeal 2013-005179
Application 11/853,742

6
As Schiller states “[e]ach channel output from headend(s) 9 has its playlist
or scheduling data such as content, order, and timing dictated by a particular
scheduler.” Schiller, col. 3, ll. 64–66. Further, the schedulers 13, 15, and 17
are able to “generate, edit, modify, etc. the playlist and other scheduling
data.” Id. at col. 4, ll. 10–11. In other words, under the Examiner’s
interpretation, the schedulers are monitoring the headend(s).
Although we observe that Schiller teaches bidirectional
communication between the schedulers (i.e., monitoring system) and
distribution stations (i.e., first and second receiver modules), see, e.g., id. at,
col. 4, l. 45–col. 5, l. 9, the Examiner has not persuasively demonstrated or
identified within Schiller that the distribution stations are being monitored
by the schedulers.
Therefore, on the record before us, we are constrained to reverse the
Examiner’s rejection of independent claim 1 and of claims 2–4 and 6–12,
which depend therefrom.3

Independent Claim 20
Appellants contend the Examiner erred in finding the combination of
Schiller and Arsenault teaches or suggests “a controller receiving a control
signal through the input-output port from a monitoring system,” as recited in
claim 20. App. Br. 12–13. Additionally, Appellants contend the
combination of Schiller and Arsenault fails to teach or suggest “a controller
. . . switching between the first encoded signal, the second encoded signal
and the serial digital input in response to the control signal and generating an

3 We do not address other non-dispositive issues raised by Appellants related
to these claims.
Appeal 2013-005179
Application 11/853,742

7
output signal corresponding to the first encoded signal, the second encoded
signal or the serial digital input in response to the control signal.” Id. at 13.
Appellants provide no evidence in support of their position and do not
persuasively rebut the Examiner’s findings. “A statement which merely
points out what a claim recites will not be considered an argument for
separate patentability of the claim.” 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv). Thus, we
are not persuaded of Examiner error.
Appellants also contend the Examiner erred in relying on Arsenault to
teach or suggest a housing containing the various components recited in
claim 20—particularly a housing containing an encoder. App. Br. 13–14.
Appellants argue “Arsenault does not show a housing that houses an encoder
coupled to such elements [i.e., receivers].” Id. at 14.
Nonobviousness cannot be established by attacking the references
individually when the rejection is predicated upon a combination of prior art
disclosures. See In re Merck & Co., Inc., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir.
1986).
The Examiner finds, and we agree, Schiller teaches a cable television
distribution system comprising the components recited in claim 20,
including an encoder. Final Act. 6–7; Ans. 15–16. The Examiner relies on
Arsenault, page 2, in combination with Schiller, for combining components
within a single housing. Final Act. 6–7; Ans. 15–16. We agree with the
Examiner’s findings and conclusions “that one of ordinary skill in the art at
the time of the invention would have found it obvious, based on the
teachings of Arsenault, to modify Schiller such that the relevant elements of
Schiller were all contained in a single housing.” Ans. 16.
Appeal 2013-005179
Application 11/853,742

8
Appellants further assert the components of Arsenault perform a
different task from those components of Schiller and, therefore, an artisan of
ordinary skill would not combine Arsenault and Schiller. App. Br. 14. We
are not persuaded by Appellants’ arguments. An obviousness analysis “need
not seek out precise teachings directed to the specific subject matter of the
challenged claim, for a court can take account of the inferences and creative
steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ.” KSR Int’l Co.
v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007). The test for obviousness is what
the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to one of
ordinary skill in the art. See In re Young, 927 F.2d 588, 591 (Fed. Cir. 1991)
and In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981). We agree with the
Examiner’s rationale and findings as found in the Answer and we adopt
them as our own without repeating them herein.4 See Ans. 15–16.
For the reasons discussed supra, we are unpersuaded of Examiner
error. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of independent
claim 20. Separate patentability is not argued for claims 21–25. App. Br.
15. Accordingly, we sustain the rejections of claims 21–25, which depend
from claim 20.

DECISION
The rejections of claims 1–4 and 6–12 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) are
reversed.
The rejections of claims 20–25 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) are affirmed.

4 To the extent Appellants are suggesting Schiller and Arsenault are not
analogous art to the Appellants’ claimed invention, Appellants have not
sufficiently presented this argument. See In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 986–87
(Fed. Cir. 2006).
Appeal 2013-005179
Application 11/853,742

9
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
bar