Ex Parte Keener et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jul 13, 2016

13205541 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 13, 2016)

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