Tiwari, Rajeev et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jan 21, 2020

15099384 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Jan. 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.
15/099,384 04/14/2016 Rajeev Tiwari 70965-1020 4945
94104 7590 01/21/2020
Taylor English Duma LLP
1600 Parkwood Circle, Suite 200
Atlanta, GA 30339
EXAMINER
ALAM, MUSHFIKH I
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2426
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
01/21/2020 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 RAJEEV TIWARI and RAFAEL VILLANUEVA
Appeal 2019-001434
Application 15/099,384
Technology Center 2400
Before MICHAEL J. STRAUSS, HUNG H. BUI, and ADAM J. PYONIN,
Administrative Patent Judges.
PYONIN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s rejection. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM-IN-PART.

1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37
C.F.R. § 1.42(a). Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Contec,
LLC. Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal 2019-001434
Application 15/099,384

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
The Application is directed to “a network-based testing system [that]
is used for testing multimedia devices such as set top boxes.” Spec. ¶ 9.
Claims 1–14 are pending; claims 1, 8, and 12 are independent. See
Response to Notification of Non-Compliant Appeal Brief, filed December
13, 2018. Claims 1 and 12 are reproduced below for reference (emphases
added):
1. A system comprising:
a plurality of video and audio analyzers, wherein each
video and audio analyzer of at least a subset of the plurality of
video and audio analyzers is configured to send input signals to
a corresponding set top box (STB) of a plurality of STBs under
test for testing the corresponding STB;
a main test controller that is remote from the plurality of
video and audio analyzers, the main test controller
communicating with the plurality of video and audio analyzers
via Ethernet;
a headend controller connected to at least one of the
plurality of video and audio analyzers, the headend controller
configured to communicate with at least one STB under test; and
a jump server connected across a network to the headend
controller, the jump server also connected across a remote link
and across a gateway to the main test controller.

12. A method of automatically testing plurality of devices,
comprising the steps of:
outputting video and audio signals from at least a subset
of a plurality of set-top boxes (STBs) under test;
receiving, at at[2] least a subset of a plurality of video and
audio analyzers, the video and audio signals output from the at
least a subset of the plurality of STBs under test;

2 We note independent claim 12 recites “at” twice in a row. For purposes of
our analysis herein, we treat the claim as reciting one “at.”
Appeal 2019-001434
Application 15/099,384

3
converting to digitized reading values, at the at least a
subset of the plurality of video and audio analyzers, the video
and audio signals received from the at least a subset of the
plurality of STBs;
transmitting, to a main controller, the digitized reading
values from the at least a subset of the plurality of video and
audio analyzers; and
analyzing, at the main controller, the digitized reading
values received from the at least a subset of the video and audio
analyzers, analysis of the digitized reading values comprising
calculations of aspects of the video and audio signals.
References and Rejections
The Examiner relies on the following prior art:
Name Reference Date
Day US 6,728,767 B1 Apr. 27, 2004
Vanderhoff US 8,595,784 B2 Nov. 26, 2013
Oliver US 2014/0123203 A1 May 1, 2014
Totten US 2014/0282783 A1 Sept. 18, 2014
McClay US 8,978,081 B2 Mar. 10, 2015

Claims 12 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) as
anticipated by Vanderhoff. Final Act. 2.
Claims 1, 3, 5, 6, 8–10, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Vanderhoff and Totten. Final Act. 4, 5.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over
Vanderhoff, Totten, and McClay. Final Act. 7.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over
Vanderhoff, Totten, and Day. Final Act. 8.
Claims 7 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable
over Vanderhoff, Totten, and Oliver. Final Act. 8
Appeal 2019-001434
Application 15/099,384

4
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellant’s
arguments. Arguments Appellant could have made but chose not to make
are deemed to be waived. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv).
With respect to claims 1–11, we are persuaded the Examiner’s
rejection is in error. With respect to claims 12–14, we disagree with
Appellant that the Examiner erred and adopt as our own the findings and
reasons set forth by the Examiner, to the extent consistent with our analysis
below. We add the following primarily for emphasis.

Anticipation Rejection
Appellant argues the Examiner’s anticipation rejection of independent
claim 12 is in error, because “[a]s clearly recited in claim 12, the
‘converting’ step takes place at the video and audio analyzers,” whereas
“Vanderhoff clearly says ‘the SDI encoder 32 may be configured to convert
the output from a selected set-top box 12, transmitted through the video
switch 30, into a format that is compatible with the analyzer.’” Reply Br. 3
(quoting Vanderhoff 5:32–35). Appellant contends “it is clear that
conversion takes place at the SDI encoder and does not take place at the
analyzer as recited in claim 12,” and “the [a]nswer cites no support for the
claim that a converter and an analyzer are synonymous.” Id.
We are not persuaded the Examiner errs in finding Vandherhoff’s
“SDI encoder is interpreted as an ‘analyzer’ for the interpretation of claim
12.” Ans. 4. Claim 12 requires the analyzer receives, converts, and
transmits the signals output from the set-top boxes (STBs). Similarly,
Vandherhoff’s SDI encoder also receives, converts, and transmits the signals
Appeal 2019-001434
Application 15/099,384

5
output from the STBs. See Final Act. 3; Vanderhoff 5:30–40. The
Examiner’s construction is consistent with the Specification—as cited by
Appellant for support of the disputed limitation—which describes the
analyzers as capturing audio and video signals, and then sending signal data
to a quick test main controller for analysis. See Appeal Br. 5; Spec. ¶¶ 24,
32. Thus, we see no error in the Examiner’s mapping of the claimed
analyzer to Vandherhoff’s SDI encoder. See Ans. 4. In a finding of
anticipation, “the reference need not satisfy an ipsissimis verbis test[.]” In
re Gleave, 560 F.3d 1331, 1334 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (citing In re Bond, 910
F.2d 831, 832–33 (Fed. Cir. 1990)).
Appellant further argues “Vander[h]off does not identically disclose
the claim 12 feature of ‘transmitting, to a main controller, the digitized
reading values from the at least a subset of the plurality of video and audio
analyzers.’” Appeal Br. 8. We are not persuaded the Examiner’s rejection
is in error. The Examiner finds that Vanderhoff’s depicted arrow pointing to
the controller discloses “the analyzed data is sent to the controller.” Ans. 5;
see also Advisory Act. 2; Final Act. 2, 3; Vanderhoff Figs. 1, 4, and 8:12–
27, 9:16–40. We find the Examiner’s analysis reasonable, and Appellant
does not respond to the Examiner’s findings in the Answer. Separately, we
note the recited “main controller” is anticipated by Vanderhoff’s analyzer
16, which receives transmissions from Vanderhoff’s SDI converter (itself
mapped to the claimed “analyzer”) and analyzes the received signals. See
Vanderhoff 5:30–40, 6:1–19.
We sustain the Examiner’s anticipation rejection of independent claim
12, and the anticipation and obviousness rejections of claims 13 and 14 not
separately argued. See Appeal Br. 17; Reply Br. 2, 3.
Appeal 2019-001434
Application 15/099,384

6

Obviousness Rejection
Appellant argues the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of independent
claim 1 is in error, because “[c]laim 1 features, inter alia, ‘. . . wherein each
video and audio analyzer . . . is configured to send input signals to a
corresponding set top box,’” whereas Vanderhoff’s “controller (not the
analyzer) [is configured] to communicate signals to the set-top boxes.”
Reply Br. 4.
We are persuaded the Examiner errs. Independent claim 1 is narrower
in scope relative to independent claim 12. The Examiner finds “Vanderhoff
teaches transmitting signals to the STBs [set-top boxes] in order to monitor
them for quality,” because “Vanderhoff says explicitly ‘to allow the analyzer
16 to communicate with the set-top boxes 12 to monitor the operations of the
set-top boxes 12 and the associated transmissions.[’]” Ans. 7 (quoting
Vanderhoff 3:4–13). As noted by Appellant, however, Vanderhoff teaches
this communication is transmitted only in one direction: Vanderhoff
“show[s] data moving from the STBs to the video switch, to the SDI
encoder, to the analyzer, but not in the reverse direction.” Reply Br. 4;
Vanderhoff Fig. 1. We agree with Appellant because Vanderhoff depicts
one way arrows from the STBs to the analyzer. See Vanderhoff Figs. 1, 4;
Reply Br. 4. That is, Vanderhoff, as cited by the Examiner, does not teach
the analyzer (or SDI encoder) is configured to send input signals to an STB.
See Appeal Br. 10.
Rather than being sent by the analyzer, the cited portions of
Vanderhoff disclose that the controller 14 sends testing signals to the STBs.
See Vanderhoff 3:7–10 (“[t]he controller 14 to communicate signals 18 to
Appeal 2019-001434
Application 15/099,384

7
the various set-top boxes 12 instructing the set-top boxes 12 to perform
certain operations.”); Final Act. 4. The Examiner, however, relies on
Vandherhoff’s controller to teach the recited “main test controller.” See
Final Act. 4. Based on the Examiner’s mapping, we agree with Appellant
that Vanderhoff fails to teach or suggest the disputed input signals sent to an
STB. Nor does the Examiner rely on Totten for teaching the disputed
limitation. See Final Act. 5.
We are persuaded the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of
independent claim 1 is in error, as well as the Examiner’s rejection of
independent claim 8, which recites limitations commensurate in scope. We
do not sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of these claims, or the
claims dependent thereon, the Examiner not relying on the other cited
references of for the disputed limitation.

DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s) Affirmed Reversed
12, 14 102(a)(1) Vanderhoff 12, 14
1, 3, 5, 8–
10, 13
103 Vanderhoff, Totten 13 1, 3, 5, 6,
8–10
2 103 Vanderhoff,
Totten, McClay
2
4 103 Vanderhoff,
Totten, Day
4
7, 11 103 Vanderhoff,
Totten, Oliver
7, 11
Overall
Outcome
12–14 1–11
Appeal 2019-001434
Application 15/099,384

8
TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE
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.
§ 1.136(a)(1)(iv).
AFFIRMED-IN-PART