Rivera, Manolo Fabio.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Dec 21, 2020

2019005045 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 21, 2020)

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.
14/599,345 01/16/2015 Manolo Fabio Rivera RIVERA-02 8404
70151 7590 12/21/2020
JIE TAN
JT LAW SERVICES, PC
901 North Broadway
Suite 20
White Plains, NY 10603
EXAMINER
ALCON, FERNANDO
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2425
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/21/2020 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 MANOLO FABIO RIVERA1
_____________

Appeal 2019-005045
Application 14/599,345
Technology Center 2400
______________

Before BRADLEY W. BAUMEISTER, JOHN A. EVANS, and BRIAN D.
RANGE, Administrative Patent Judges.

EVANS, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE2

This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the
Examiner’s Final Rejection of Claims 1–25 and 27–38. Appeal Br. 1. We
have jurisdiction over the pending claims under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.

1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in
37 C.F.R. § 1.42(a). The Appeal Brief identifies AMAZING SETTOPBOX
HOLDING LLC, as the real party in interest. Appeal Br. 1.
2 Throughout this Decision, we refer to the Appeal Brief (“Appeal Br.”) filed
January 9, 2019, the Reply Brief (“Reply Br.”) filed June 14, 2019, the Final
Office Action (“Final Act.”) mailed October 24, 2018, the Examiner’s
Answer mailed April 15, 2019, and the Specification (“Spec.”) filed January
16, 2015.
Appeal 2019-005045
Application 14/599,345

2

INVENTION
The invention is directed to a wireless IPTV set top box. See
Abstract. Claims 1, 12, 27, 31, and 35 are independent. Appeal Br. 1.
Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the invention.
1. A wireless set top box comprising:
a plurality of wireless modem modules configured for
processing internet protocol television (IPTV) signals, wherein
each wireless modem module is configured to:
receive a plurality of IPTV wireless broadband
connection signals from a plurality of cellular data
networks; and
process the received plurality of IPTV wireless
broadband connection signals into a set of data signals
according to a different respective wireless
communication standard; and
a processor communicatively coupled to the wireless
modem modules, wherein the processor is configured to:
establish, using at least two of the wireless modem
modules, a plurality of wireless network links between
the wireless set top box and at least one cellular data
network;
receive, using each of the at least two wireless
modem modules, a respective set of data transmitted
through one of the network links;
determine a wireless broadband connection signal
strength associated with each set of data;
identify, from among the sets of data, a set of data
corresponding to a strongest wireless broadband
connection signal strength;
Appeal 2019-005045
Application 14/599,345

3

determine internet protocol television (IPTV)
signals upon among the set of data from the strongest
wireless broad band connection signal strength; and
transmit output signals corresponding to the IPTV
signals to a device communicatively coupled to the[]
wireless set top box.
Appeal Br. 20 (Claims App.).

PRIOR ART
Name3 Reference Date
Sampsell US 6,219,839 B1 Apr. 17, 2001
Margulis US 6,263,503 B1 July 17, 2001
Safadi US 2001/0051037 A1 Dec. 13, 2001
Wolff US 2004/0031056 A1 Feb. 12, 2004
Valmiki US 2005/0012759 A1 Jan. 20, 2005
Amine US 2005/0091693 A1 Apr. 28, 2005
Roche US 2007/0136459 A1 June 14, 2007
Wilhelm US 2007/0256096 A1 Nov. 01, 2007
Tsui US 2009/0167945 A1 July 02, 2009
Skeels US 2009/0067488 A1 Mar. 12, 2009
Raleigh US 2010/0188975 A1 July 29, 2010
Nicoara US 2012/0140651 A1 June 7, 20124

3 All citations herein to the references are by reference to the first named
inventor/author only.
4 Priority provisional application No. 61/418,460, filed December 1, 2010.
Appeal 2019-005045
Application 14/599,345

4

REJECTIONS5 AT ISSUE
1. Claims 1–25 and 27–38 stand provisionally rejected on the ground of
nonstatutory double patenting over Claims 1–25 and 27–38 of co-
pending Application No. 14/599317 (Abn), and over Claims 1–26 of
co-pending Application No. 14/599371(Abn). Final Act. 5.
2. Claims 1, 3–7, 10–12, 14–18, 21, and 22 stand rejected under pre-AIA
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Roche, Raleigh, and Nicoara.
Final Act. 6–13.
3. Claims 33–37 stand rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
obvious over Roche, Raleigh, Nicoara, and Tsui. Final Act. 13–14.
4. Claims 2 and 13 stand rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
obvious over Roche, Raleigh, Nicoara, and Margulis. Final Act. 14–
15.
5. Claims 8, 9, 19, 20, and 25 stand rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. §
103(a) as obvious over Roche, Raleigh, Nicoara, and Wilhem. Final
Act. 15–16.
6. Claims 23 and 14 stand rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
obvious over Roche, Raleigh, Nicoara, and Sampsell. Final Act. 16–
17.
7. Claims 27–29 stand rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
obvious over Roche, Raleigh, Nicoara, Tsui, and Valmiki. Final
Act. 17–19.

5 The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent
provisions. Final Act 2.
Appeal 2019-005045
Application 14/599,345

5

8. Claim 30 stands rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
obvious over Roche, Raleigh, Nicoara, Tsui, Valmiki, Safadi, Wolff,
and Amine. Final Act. 19–20.
9. Claims 31, 32, and 336 stand rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as obvious over Roche, Raleigh, Nicoara, Tsui, Valmiki, and
Skeels. Final Act. 20–21.
10. Claim 34 stands rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
obvious over Roche, Raleigh, Nicoara, Tsui, Valmiki, Skeels, Safadi,
Wolff, and Amine. Final Act. 21–22.
11. Claim 38 stands rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
obvious over Roche, Raleigh, Nicoara, Tsui, Safadi, Wolff, and
Amine. Final Act. 22–23.

ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the rejections of Claims 1–25 and 27–38 in light of
Appellant’s arguments that the Examiner erred. Appellant’s arguments are
persuasive of error. We provide the following explanation to highlight and
address specific arguments and findings primarily for emphasis. We
consider Appellant’s arguments as they are presented in the Appeal Brief and
the Reply Brief.
CLAIMS 1–25 AND 27–38: PROVISIONAL NONSTATUTORY
DOUBLE PATENTING.
Claims 1–25 and 27–38 stand provisionally rejected on the ground of
nonstatutory double patenting over Claims 1–25 and 27–38 of co-pending

6 Claims 32 and 33 are discussed in the body of the rejection. We assume
their omission from the header is harmless typographical error.
Appeal 2019-005045
Application 14/599,345

6

Application No. 14/599317, and over Claims 1–26 of co-pending
Application No. 14/599371. Final Act 5.
Our inspection of the files of the two related applications reveals that
each has gone abandoned. Thus, we do not reach the merits as the rejection
appears to be moot.

CLAIMS 1, 3–7, 10–12, 14–18, 21, AND 22:
OBVIOUSNESS OVER ROCHE, RALEIGH, AND NICOARA.
Appellants argue independent Claim 1 and its dependent Claims 2–11,
independent Claim 12 and its dependent Claims 13–25, independent
Claim 27 and its dependent Claims 28–30, independent Claim 31 and its
dependent Claims 32–34, and independent Claim 35 and its dependent
Claims 36–38, as a group in view of the recitations of independent Claim 1.
See Appeal Br. 11. Independent Claim 1 recites, inter alia, “[a] wireless set
top box comprising: a plurality of wireless modem modules configured for
processing IPTV signals.” Independent Claims 12, 27, 31, and 35 recite
commensurate limitations.
Appellant contends “Roche does not disclose a wireless set-top box
that comprises ‘a plurality of wireless modem modules configured for
processing IPTV signals.’” Appeal Br. 11.
The Examiner finds, “Roche discloses a wireless set top box” because
the television set 120 with integrated set box functions reads on a set top
box. Final Act. 6 (citing Roche, ¶ 14). The Examiner finds Roche does not
disclose a plurality of wireless modems configured to process IPTV signals.
Final Act. 7. However, the Examiner finds, “Raleigh discloses a plurality of
wireless modem modules configured for processing signals.” Id. at 8. The
Appeal 2019-005045
Application 14/599,345

7

Examiner further finds modifying the system of Roche with the methods of
Raleigh would result in wireless modems configured to process IPTV
signals. Id.
Appellant argues that, contrary to the Examiner’s finding, Roche does
not disclose a wireless set top box. Appeal Br. 12. Appellant quotes Roche
as disclosing: “the end user can have a digital and or analog television
set 120 residing in a residence with integrated functions such as found in a
set top box. Alternatively, the end user can utilize a portable media device
such as a cell phone 122 (or multimode device) capable of voice and high
speed data communication.” Id. (quoting Roche, ¶ 14) (cited by the
Examiner). Appellant argues Roche’s use of the word “alternatively,”
means set top box 120 is not the same device as cellphone 122. Id.
Moreover, Appellant argues Roche does not suggest that set top box 120 is
capable of wireless communications. Id.
The Examiner responds, clarifying that Roche discloses: “[t]he
aforementioned media devices 120–126 can be connected to the MSS
[multimedia services system] 100 by way of a wired and/or wireless
communication link 103 to a communication system 101.” Ans. 6 (quoting
Roche, ¶ 15).
Appellant subsequently argues: “[t]he essential evidential rational of
Appellant is that the generic teaching of a landline IPTV in Roche did not
provide the teaching for a wireless IPTV set-top box that receives cellular
wireless signals.” Reply Br. 2.
Turning to the cited art, Roche discloses:
FIG. 1 is a block diagram of multimedia services system
(MSS) 100 according to teachings of the present disclosure.
The MSS 100 comprises one or more service centers such as a
Appeal 2019-005045
Application 14/599,345

8

streaming audio and video service center 102, an Internet
Protocol Television (IPTV) service center 104, a gaming
service center 106, a central office service center 108, and a
wireless communications service center 110, just to mention a
few. Each of the service centers is coupled by landline (or
wireless) communication means to a controller 112 that
manages said systems.
Roche, ¶ 10. We find Roche discloses a plurality of service centers. We
find Roche discloses each center communicates alternatively by landline or
wireless means. We find no disclosure that each center communicates by
both means. For example, Roche discloses a distinction between landline
and wireless services:
The central office service center 108 provides common landline
services such as POTS (Plain Old Telephone Services), cable
services, and/or broadband services such as xDSL (Digital
Subscriber Line). The wireless communications service
center 110 provides common wireless services such as cellular
communications, dispatch services, WiFi, or WiMax.
Roche, ¶ 13.
Roche discloses: “the end user can have a digital and/or
analog television set 120 residing in a residence with integrated
functions such as those found in a set top box.” Roche, ¶ 14 (cited by the
Examiner). There is no suggestion the set top box comprises wireless
modem(s). Roche provides an alternative, wireless embodiment:
“Alternatively, the end user can utilize a portable media device such as a cell
phone 122 (or multimode device) capable of voice and high-speed data
communications.” Id.
The Examiner finds “Nicoara is not relied upon to disclose IPTV
signals nor processing IPTV signals.” Final Act. 2. The Examiner finds
Appeal 2019-005045
Application 14/599,345

9

Raleigh discloses mobile devices comprising wireless modems. Final
Act. 8.
We agree with Appellant’s contention that Raleigh discloses a
plurality of wireless modems for WWAN, USB, WIFI, BLUETOOTH, and
ETHERNET communications, but Raleigh fails to disclose modems for
IPTV signals. Appeal Br. 14.
We find the cited art fails to teach or suggest a plurality of wireless
IPTV modems, as claimed in each of the independent claims. In view of the
foregoing, we decline to sustain the rejection of Claims 1–25 and 27–38.
In view of the foregoing, we decline to sustain the rejection of
independent Claims 1, 12, 27, 31 and 35 and of claims dependent therefrom.

CONCLUSION
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§
Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1–25 and
27–38
nonstatutory
double patenting
Moot
1, 3–7, 10–
12, 14–18,
21, 22
103 Roche, Raleigh,
Nicoara
1, 3–7, 10–
12, 14–18,
21, 22
33–37 103 Roche, Raleigh,
Nicoara, Tsui
33–37
2, 13 103 Roche, Raleigh,
Nicoara, Margulis
2, 13
8, 9, 19, 20,
25
103 Roche, Raleigh,
Nicoara, Wilhem
8, 9, 19, 20,
25
23, 14 103 Roche, Raleigh,
Nicoara, Sampsell
23, 14
27–29 103 Roche, Raleigh,
Nicoara, Tsui,
Valmiki
27–29
Appeal 2019-005045
Application 14/599,345

10

30 103 Roche, Raleigh,
Nicoara, Tsui,
Valmiki, Safadi,
Wolff, Amine
30
31, 32, 33 103 Roche, Raleigh,
Nicoara, Tsui,
Valmiki, Skeels
31, 32, 33
34 103 Roche, Raleigh,
Nicoara, Tsui,
Valmiki, Skeels,
Safadi, Wolff,
Amine
34
38 103 Roche, Raleigh,
Nicoara, Tsui,
Safadi, Wolff,
Amine
38
Overall 1–25, 27–
38

REVERSED