Ex Parte Keener et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardJul 13, 201613205541 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 13, 2016) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 13/205,541 08/08/2011 83579 7590 07115/2016 LEVEL 3 COMMUNICATIONS, LLC Attn: Patent Docketing 1025 Eldorado Blvd. Broomfield, CO 80021 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR David J. Keener 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 ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO. 0083-US-Cl 2074 EXAMINER TRAN, TRANGU ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2422 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 07/15/2016 ELECTRONIC 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. Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the following e-mail address( es): patent.docketing@level3.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte DA YID J. KEENER, JOHN S. JONES, and PETER L. WARD Appeal2015-002248 Application 13/205,541 Technology Center 2400 Before CARLL. SILVERMAN, MONICA S. ULLAGADDI, and MATTHEW J. McNEILL, Administrative Patent Judges. McNEILL, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL A. "1"1 ,1 "1 "1 ,..,,,-TT#'l~ll"l,..,,Al/'-r'" ,"1 T"""i •., Appeuants' appeal unaer j) u.~.L. s U4~aJ rrom me bxammer s rejection of claims 1-20, which are all the claims pending in this application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm-in-part. 1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Level 3 Communications, LLC. Br. 2. Appeal2015-002248 Application 13/205,541 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Introduction Appellants' present application relates to reconfiguring a signal processing circuit based on a detected signal type. Abstract. Claim 1 is illustrative of the subject matter on appeal and reads as follows: 1. A method for airing a broadcast signal over a broadcast network comprising: receiving a broadcast signal at a transmission relay circuit of a demarcation/equipment cabinet; determining the broadcast signal type with a broadcast signal sensing and discerning circuit of the transmission relay circuit; and reconfiguring a signal processing circuit of the transmission relay circuit when the configuration of the signal processing circuit does not support transmission of the determined broadcast signal type. The Examiner's Rejections Claims 18-20 are subject to a non-statutory obviousness-type double patenting rejection as unpatentable over claims 1 and 3 of Keener (US 7,995,151 B2; Aug. 9, 2011). Ans. 2-3. Claims 1and4-14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Ihara (US 6,266,813 Bl; July 24, 2011) and Honey (US 5,917,553; June 29, 1999). Ans. 4-8. Claims 2, 3, and 15-17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Ihara, Honey, and Beaudoin (US 2005/0169314 A 1; Aug. 4, 2005). Ans. 9-11. Claims 18-20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Honey and Ihara. Ans. 11-13. 2 Appeal2015-002248 Application 13/205,541 ANALYSIS Claim 1 The Examiner finds the combination of Ihara and Honey teaches or suggests "reconfiguring a signal processing circuit of the transmission relay circuit when the configuration of the signal processing circuit does not support transmission of the determined broadcast signal type." Ans. 15, Final Act. 7-8. Specifically, the Examiner finds Honey teaches a processor connected to a video modification unit, where the processor accounts for occlusions. Ans. 15 (citing Honey 7:41-8:17). Honey teaches an alternate embodiment where the processor edits the video signal without using a video modification unit. Id. The Examiner finds these passages suggest that the video modification unit is used to reconfigure a signal processing circuit when the signal processing circuit does not support transmission of the determined broadcast signal type. Ans. 15. Appellants argue the Examiner erred in finding Honey teaches the "reconfiguring" limitation because Honey teaches modifying the content of a video signal, not reconfiguring a signal processing circuit. Br. 6-7. Appellants have persuaded us that the Examiner erred. Honey teaches a processor and video modification unit that modify a video signal to add graphics, such as advertisements. Honey 7:41-8: 17. Honey, therefore, teaches modifying a video signal, not a signal processing circuit. Moreover, even if Honey's modification were deemed to act on a signal processing circuit, the Examiner has not identified any teaching in Honey that indicates that the modification occurs "when the configuration of the signal processing circuit does not support transmission of the determined broadcast 3 Appeal2015-002248 Application 13/205,541 signal type." Accordingly, on the record before us we are constrained to reverse the Examiner's rejection of claim 1. 2 Claims 18-20 Obviousness-type Double Patenting Rejection Claims 18-20 stand rejected on the ground ofnonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as unpatentable over claims 1 and 3 of Keener. Appellants do not argue for reversal of the rejection, instead proposing to file a terminal disclaimer if the rejection stands upon Notice of Allowability in the present case. Br. 2. Because Appellants have not argued the rejection is in error, we proforma sustain the obviousness-type double patenting rejection of claims 18-20. 103 Rejection Claims 18-20 also stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Honey and Ihara. Ans. 11-13. Claim 18 is a system claim similar in scope to claim 1, but claim 18 does not include a limitation commensurate in scope with claim l's "reconfiguring" limitation. Appellants argue the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 18 because the combination of Honey and Ihara does not teach "a signal sensing and discerning circuit operable to determine a signal type of the broadcast signal." Br. 12-13. Specifically, Appellants argue the Examiner erred 2 Because we are persuaded of error with regard to the identified issue, which is dispositive of the rejection of claim 1 over Ihara and Honey, we do not reach the additional issues raised by Appellants' arguments related to this claim. 4 Appeal2015-002248 Application 13/205,541 because lhara teaches transmitting program specific information (PSI) having a packet ID. Br. 13 (citing Ihara 10:13-11:15). Appellants argue the PSI does not include the broadcast signal type. Br. 12-13. We disagree. As found by the Examiner, Ihara teaches transmitting PSI, including a network information table (NIT) that "inherently include[ s] information, such as modulation frequency, for associating information about the transmission path with a broadcasting service." Ans. 21-22. The Examiner finds, and we agree, that the NIT is used to determine the transmission path and, thus, represents a broadcast signal type. 3 Id. at 22. Appellants have not persuaded us of error in the Examiner's findings and reasoning. Accordingly, we adopt the findings of the Examiner related to the obviousness rejection of claims 18-20. We, therefore, sustain the obviousness rejection of claims 18-20. CONCLUSIONS On the record before us and in view of the analysis above, Appellants have persuaded us that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1. Therefore, we do not sustain the rejection of claim 1 and claims 2-17 dependent therefrom. On the record before us and in view of the analysis above, Appellants have not persuaded us that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 18-20 as unpatentable over Honey and Ihara. Therefore, we sustain the rejection of claims 18-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Honey and 3 Appellants did not file a Reply Brief in response to the Examiner's Answer. 5 Appeal2015-002248 Application 13/205,541 lhara. On the record before us and in view of the analysis above, we also sustain the obviousness-type double patenting rejection of claims 18-20. DECISION We reverse the decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1-1 7. We affirm the decision of the Examiner to reject claims 18-20. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § l .136(a)(l )(iv). AFFIRMED-IN-PART 6 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation