Ex Parte Uhlemann

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Sep 8, 2011

11039392 (B.P.A.I. Sep. 8, 2011)

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.
11/039,392 01/19/2005 Stefan Uhlemann 1890-0187 1070
95404 7590 09/09/2011
Eschweiler & Associates (Lantiq)
629 Euclid Avenue
Suite 1000
Cleveland, OH 44114
EXAMINER
ZHOU, YONG
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2477
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/09/2011 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 BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
_____________

Ex parte STEFAN UHLEMANN
_____________

Appeal 2009-010989
Application 11/039,392
Technology Center 2400
______________

Before, JOSEPH F. RUGGIERO, ROBERT E. NAPPI, and
DAVID M. KOHUT, Administrative Patent Judges.

KOHUT, 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 17-32.
1
We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm-in-part the Examiner’s rejection of these claims.

1
Claims 1-16 were previously cancelled.
Appeal 2009-010989
Application 11/039,392

2
INVENTION
The invention is directed to a method and line card for transmitting
communication signals between a number of subscribers and a master
station. See Spec. 1-9. Claim 17 is representative of the invention and is
reproduced below:
17. A telephone line card for transmission of communication signals
between a master station location and a number of subscribers,
comprising:
a plurality of ports associated with the number of subscribers;
an interface operably coupled to each port to enable
transmission of a first communication signal between the master
station location and a corresponding subscriber through an
associated port;
an addition circuit configured to merge signals from the
plurality of ports to a further port;
a further interface operably coupled between the further port and
the addition circuit to enable transmission of a second
communication signal between the master station location and at
least one of the subscribers over an associated port of the plurality
of ports via the addition circuit.

REFERENCES
Dowling US 2003/0156632 A1 Aug. 21, 2003

Gorman US 6,917,624 B1 Jul. 12, 2005
(filed Oct. 4, 2000)

Bingel US 7,035,380 B1 Apr. 25, 2006
(filed Dec. 27, 2000)

REJECTIONS AT ISSUE
Claims 17-29 and 32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Bingel in view of Dowling. Ans. 3-9.
Appeal 2009-010989
Application 11/039,392

3
Claims 30 and 31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Bingel in view of Dowling and Gorman. Ans. 9.

ISSUES
Claims 17-28
Appellant argues on pages 5-12 of the Appeal Brief and pages 2-7 of
the Reply Brief that the Examiner’s rejection of claims 17-28 is in error.
These arguments present the following issue: Did the Examiner err in
finding that Bingel in view of Dowling discloses a further interface operably
coupled between the further port and the addition circuit?
2

Claims 29-32
Appellant argues on pages 12-14 of the Appeal Brief and page 7 of
the Reply Brief that the Examiner’s rejection of claims 29-32 is in error.
These arguments present the following issues:
a) Did the Examiner err in finding Bingel and Dowling discloses
transmitting first and second signals from a telephone interface
card, wherein the first and second signals contain different
frequency ranges?
b) Did the Examiner err in combining Dowling and Gorman with
Bingel?

2
Appellant makes additional arguments with respect to claims 17-28. App.
Br. 5-12; Reply Br. 2-7. However, we do not reach these additional
arguments as this issue is dispositive of claims 17-28.
Appeal 2009-010989
Application 11/039,392

4
ANALYSIS
Claims 17-28
Claim 17 recites “a further interface operably coupled between the
further port and the addition circuit.” Claims 18-28 depend upon claim 17.
Appellant initially argues that neither Bingel nor Dowling discloses a
telephone line card that contains an interface and a further interface. App.
Br. 7. In response, the Examiner finds that Bingel’s Figure 5 discloses
interfaces (94A) and a further interface (60) with a port coupled between the
further interface (60) and the addition circuit (62). Ans. 12. In response,
Appellant argues that the Examiner has misinterpreted claim 17 because the
claim requires that the further interface be coupled between the port and the
addition circuit, not the port coupled between the interface and the addition
circuit. Reply Br. 3-4. As a result, Appellant contends that the references
do not disclose that which is claimed. Reply Br. 4. Since the Examiner has
not responded to this argument and since we do not find that either of the
references discloses an interface coupled between the further port and the
addition circuit, we agree with Appellant and will not sustain the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 17-28.

Claims 29-32
Claim 29 requires transmitting a first communication signal and a
second communication signal wherein the second communication signal is
transmitted using a different frequency range than the first communication
signal. Appellant argues that this limitation is not taught since “neither
Bingel nor Dowling teach a telephone line card that combines and transmits
both DSL and POTS signals.” App. Br. 12. We disagree.
Appeal 2009-010989
Application 11/039,392

5
The Examiner finds that Bingel discloses an interface that transmits
and combines a POTS signal (first communication signal) and a further
interface that transmits a DSL signal (second communication signal). Ans.
4. As shown in column 3, lines 28-40 of Bingel, the POTS signal and the
DSL signal are transmitted on different frequencies (0-4kHz and greater than
4kHz respectively). Additionally, the Examiner finds that Dowling discloses
a telephone line card that transmits and combines those same signals. Ans.
5. Therefore, it is the combination of Dowling with Bingel that discloses the
claimed limitation and not either of the references individually.
Appellant further argues that Dowling’s modem does not combine the
signals on a telephone line card because it is a single interface that can only
transmit a POTS signal (citing Dowling, ¶ [0037]). App. Br. 7.
Additionally, Appellant argues that even if Dowling could transmit more
than one signal that it would not use separate interfaces. App. Br. 7-8. First,
we disagree that the signals are not combined on the line card since Dowling
specifically states in paragraph [0037], “[t]he line card 200 provides a
standard analog line interface to the analog subscriber line 137 (POTS) and
also provides signal processing needed to enable high-speed uplink data
communication.” Second, we note that the Examiner uses Bingel, not
Dowling, to disclose the separate interfaces. Again, we agree with the
Examiner’s finding that the combination of Dowling with Bingel discloses
the claimed limitation.
Finally, Appellant argues that the Examiner has not provided a
sufficient reason for combining Dowling with Bingel. App. Br. 11 and 13.
We disagree. The Examiner identifies the relevant portions of each of the
references relied on throughout the Examiner’s Answer. See Ans. 7-9. To
Appeal 2009-010989
Application 11/039,392

6
the extent that the Examiner relies on the knowledge of one of ordinary skill
in the art to combine the teachings of the references, this practice is
consistent with current case law. For example, the Supreme Court explains:
Often, it will be necessary for a court to look to interrelated teachings of
multiple patents; the effects of demands known to the design community
or present in the marketplace; and the background knowledge possessed
by a person having ordinary skill in the art, all in order to determine
whether there was an apparent reason to combine the known elements in
the fashion claimed by the patent at issue. To facilitate review, this
analysis should be made explicit. See In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988
(C.A.Fed.2006) (“[R]ejections on obviousness grounds cannot be
sustained by mere conclusory statements; instead, there must be some
articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the
legal conclusion of obviousness”). As our precedents make clear,
however, the 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).
In this case, the Examiner’s conclusions of obviousness are clearly
articulated and are based on detailed factual findings that are supported by
the references of record. See Ans. 7-9. However, in responding to
Appellant’s arguments, the Examiner additionally finds that
“It is well known in the art that [a] telephone line card is
preferably installed in telephone network interface equipment located
within a local exchange carrier (LEC) premises (“Master Station
Location”) to provide an interface to the analog subscriber line (see
Dowling, [0037], lines 3-6). In fact, the telephone line card has
evolved considerably from supporting POTS service, ISDN service, to
DSL service, or other services. It is both technically and
economically advantageous to combine interface functions for
supporting analog and digital services to subscribers over analog
subscriber loop lines in a single network interface system, which is
preferably a line card.
Appeal 2009-010989
Application 11/039,392

7
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill
in the art at the time the invention was made to implement the line
sharing network interface functions in a line card.”

Ans. 17.
Appellant does not specifically address this rationale proffered by the
Examiner. We find the Examiner’s rationale to be reasonable. Thus, for the
reasons stated supra, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 29.
In regards to claims 30-32, Appellant makes the same arguments with
respect to claim 29. Thus, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 30-
32 for the reasons stated supra with respect to claim 29.

CONCLUSION
The Examiner erred in finding that Bingel in view of Dowling
discloses a further interface operably coupled between the further port and
the addition circuit.
The Examiner did not err in finding Bingel and Dowling discloses
transmitting first and second signals from a telephone interface card,
wherein the first and second signals contain different frequency ranges.
The Examiner did not err in combining Dowling and Gorman with
Bingel.

SUMMARY
The Examiner’s decision to reject claims 17-28 is reversed and claims
29-32 is affirmed.
Appeal 2009-010989
Application 11/039,392

8
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

ELD