Ex Parte Klein

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 27, 2013

10666184 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 27, 2013)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
_____________

Ex parte DEAN A. KLEIN
_____________

Appeal 2010-009585
Application 10/666,184
Technology Center 2400
______________

Before KALYAN K. DESHPANDE, JASON V. MORGAN, and
BRYAN F. MOORE, Administrative Patent Judges.

MOORE, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2010-009585
Application 10/666,184

2
This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the Final
Rejection of claims 1-51 which represent all the pending claims. App. Br. 3.
We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.

INVENTION
The invention is directed to systems and methods that filter video
signals on a coaxial cable to provide bandwidth for a local area network. See
Spec. ¶ [0007].
Claim 1 is exemplary of the invention and is reproduced below:
1. A network bus comprising:
a notch filter in communication with a coaxial cable, said
coaxial cable routed in a tree configuration to a plurality of
locations of a building, said notch filter comprising a first port
in communication with an external source, said notch filter
configured to filter out one or more bands of video signals
received on said first port from an external source that are
carried by said coaxial cable, wherein said notch filter further
comprising a second port configured to receive via said coaxial
cable, transmissions from a local area network of computers
within said building, said transmissions occurring at one or
more frequencies within said filtered out bands of video signals
such that said transmissions from said local area network occur
at one or more frequencies as said filtered out bands of video
signals, and wherein said notch filter receives at said second
port said transmissions over said coaxial cable within said
building and allows said transmissions within said building
while filtering said transmissions from being sent from said
local area network to said external source; and
a frequency converter, in communication with said
coaxial cable, configured to receive transmissions from said
local area network of computers at at least a first frequency and
to send said signals within said tree configuration to said local
area network of computers at at least a second frequency,
Appeal 2010-009585
Application 10/666,184

3
wherein said first and second frequencies are within said
filtered out bands of video signals such that said local area
network of computers can send and receive signals within said
filtered out band of video signals on said coaxial cable in
communication of said second port of said notch filter while
said notch filter blocks said transmissions on said local area
network from exiting said building.

REFERENCES
Sanders US 5,742,713 Apr. 21, 1998
Coutinho US 5,760,822 Jun. 2, 1998
Decker US 6,009,465 Dec. 28, 1999
Smith US 6,195,530 B1 Feb. 27, 2001
Freadman US 6,288,749 B1 Sep. 11, 2001
Hendricks US 6,738,978 B1 May 18, 2004

REJECTIONS AT ISSUE
Claims 1-5 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over the combination of Freadman, Smith, Decker, and Sanders. Ans. 3-5.
Claims 6-9 and 12 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over the combination of Freadman, Smith, and Sanders. Ans.
5-7.
Claims 13-33 and 42-51 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over the combination of Freadman, Decker, and Sanders. Ans.
7-15.
Appeal 2010-009585
Application 10/666,184

4
Claims 34, 35, and 38-41 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over the combination of Freadman, Smith, Coutinho, and
Sanders. Ans. 15-17.
Claims 10 and 11 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over the combination of Freadman, Smith, Sanders, and
Hendricks. Ans. 17-18.
Claims 36 and 37 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over the combination of Freadman, Coutinho, Sanders and
Hendricks. Ans. 18-19.

ISSUE
Did the Examiner err in finding that the combination of Freadman,
Smith, Decker, and Sanders teaches:
[A] notch filter receives at said second port said transmissions over
said coaxial cable within said building and allows said transmissions
within said building while filtering said transmissions from being sent
from said local area network to said external source; and
a frequency converter, in communication with said coaxial
cable, configured to receive transmissions from said local area
network of computers at at [sic] least a first frequency and to
send said signals within said tree configuration to said local
area network of computers at at [sic] least a second frequency,
wherein said first and second frequencies are within said
filtered out bands of video signals such that [B] said local area
network of computers can send and receive signals within said
filtered out band of video signals on said coaxial cable in
communication of said second port of said notch filter,
Appeal 2010-009585
Application 10/666,184

5
as recited in claim 1?
1

ANALYSIS
Appellant argues that “[w]hile Freadman discloses a notch filter and
refers to a local network between the computer and the television set, the
system in Freadman does not create a local area network of computers that
both send and receive data with each other within the filtered video
channel.” Br. 13. Thus, Appellant argues that limitation B above is not met.
Figure 2 of Freadman does show a notch filter 62 attenuating selected
video signals send upstream to televisions 30. Freadman, 3:52-62. Freadman
also teaches that a computer can send and receive messages from other users
of televisions 30. Freadman, 4:28-30. Freadman also teaches a wired data
connection 51 between the computer 10 and the converter 50 that may
receive data. Freadman, 4:33-34. However, Freadman does not teach that the
wired connection 51 is a filtered video connection. Thus, Friedman teaches
local area network of computers can send signals within said filtered out
band of video signals on said coaxial cable in communication of said second
port of said notch filter. However, Friedman does not explicitly teach that a
local area network of computers can receive signals within said filtered out
band of video signals on said coaxial cable in communication of said second
port of said notch filter.
For example, the Examiner states that “[d]ata is then transmitted over
theses [sic] attenuated frequencies between computer 10 and televisions 30
(col. 3 lines 36-48 and col. 4 lines 22-30). Messages are sent from
televisions 30 to computer 10 then back from computer 10 to televisions 30

1
Appellants argue only limitations A and B, however, the other parts of the
claim are included for context.
Appeal 2010-009585
Application 10/666,184

6
(col. 4 lines 22-30).” Ans. 19. However, we do not find any description of
messages sent from televisions 30 to computer 10 in the text cited by the
Examiner. The Examiner also finds that “[t]hese messages are carried over
link 51 (col. 4 lines 31-36) which is part of the local network.” Id. However,
as noted above the claim requires that the computer receive data over a
filtered video channel, the Examiner has not shown or asserted that wired
connection 51 is a filtered video channel as recited by claim 1. Although we
disagree with this finding, this finding appears to be an alternative finding,
because the Examiner also relies on Smith to show the receiving portion of
limitation at issue.
Appellant argues that “while one may construe Smith to teach the
downstream sending of signals from the transmitter/receiver 10 to the
terminals 7, 8, and 9 over a video signal, Smith fails to teach receiving at the
transmitter/receiver 10 information from the terminals 7, 8, and 9 over a
video signal.” Br. 14. Specifically, Appellant argues that in Smith the
“Transmission of upstream signals occurs over a non-video channel
operating at 25 MHz.” We are not persuaded by this argument.
The Examiner has shown, as discussed above, that Freadman teaches
sending transmissions downstream from a computer to a converter. The
Examiner has also shown, Smith teaches sending transmissions upstream
from a receiver to a terminal, as Appellant admits. Ans. 20; Br. 14.
Additionally, Appellant’s Specification states that video such as
videoconferencing can occur in the 5-42 MHz range. Spec. [0004]. Also, the
claim does not recite a frequency range for the sending of signals so
Appellant’s argument is not commensurate with the scope of the claims.
Thus, since Freadman shows sending signals and Smith shows receiving
Appeal 2010-009585
Application 10/666,184

7
signals, the Examiner has shown that the combination of Freadman and
Smith collectively teach the limitation at issue.
Appellant also argues “Decker also does not transmit two-way
computer communications over a filtered band of video signals,” (Br. 19)
however, the Examiner is relying on Decker only to show multiple
computers connected to a wire. Ans. 4. Therefore, this argument does not
respond to the Examiner’s specific findings.
Claim 1 recites “notch filter receives at said second port said
transmissions over said coaxial cable within said building and allows said
transmissions within said building while filtering said transmissions from
being sent from said local area network to said external source. Appellant
argues that:
even if one were to take the circuit described in Sanders and
add it the combination of references described by the other cited
references, the combination would not achieve the two-way
filtering as set forth in Claim 1. Rather, Sanders would only
provide a one-way filter that blocks upstream communications.
Br. 28. Thus, Appellant argues that limitation A above is not met. However,
the Examiner only relies on Sanders to show one way filtering using a notch
filter to block transmissions being sent to an external source. Ans. at 4.
Freadman shows a notch filter filtering incoming signals and filtering
outgoing signals with a separate filter that is not explicitly a notch filter.
Freadman, 3:49-62. Thus, Sanders is used only to show an outgoing notch
filter. As such, Appellant is responding to the rejection by attacking the
Sanders reference individually, even though the rejection is based on the
combined teachings of the references. Nonobviousness cannot be established
by attacking the references individually when the rejection is predicated
Appeal 2010-009585
Application 10/666,184

8
upon a combination of prior art disclosures. See In re Merck & Co. Inc., 800
F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Appellant does not make any substantively new arguments regarding
the rejection of claims 2-51. Thus, for the reasons stated above, we affirm
the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1-51.
DECISION
The Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1-51 is affirmed.
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

ELD