Ex Parte Maxson et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 21, 2018

14326589 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 21, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
14/326,589 07/09/2014
133681 7590
Mannava & Kang, P.C.
3201 Jermantown Road
Suite 525
Fairfax, VA 22030
09/25/2018
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Ben Maxson
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.
1095.0019 1221
EXAMINER
RIAZ, SAHAR AQIL
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2424
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/25/2018 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):
docketing@mannavakang.com
dmitry.brant@viavisolutions.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte BEN MAXSON and KOJI OKAMOTO
Appeal 2018-002623
Application 14/326,589 1
Technology Center 2400
Before DEBRA K. STEPHENS, DANIEL J. GALLIGAN, and
DAVID J. CUTITTA II, Administrative Patent Judges.
STEPHENS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of
claims 1-21, which are all of the claims pending in the application. We
have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We REVERSE.
1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Viavi Solutions INC.
(App. Br. 3).
Appeal 2018-002623
Application 14/326,589
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
According to Appellants, the claims are directed to a system for
injecting test signals into a cable network at a power level lower than the
power level of active signals on the cable network (Spec. ,r 40, Abstract).
Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. A method for obtaining a frequency response of a
cable network between first and second spaced apart points
thereof, the method comprising:
(a) inserting a multi-frequency test signal into the cable
network with a transmitter at the first point at a power level
below that of active signals on the cable network, so as to
substantially not disrupt the transmission of the active signals;
and
(b) coherently detecting power readings of the multi-
frequency test signal with a receiver at the second point of the
cable network; and
c) generating the frequency response of the cable network
from results of step b ).
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Tanabe
Sung
Shafer
Totten
US 2004/0214603 Al
US 2006/0098749 Al
US 2012/0213083 Al
US 2014/0282783 Al
REJECTIONS
Oct. 28, 2004
May 11, 2006
Aug. 23, 2012
Sept. 18, 2014
Claims 1, 2, 4, 11, 12, 14, 17, 18, and 21 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(l) as being anticipated by Shafer (Final Act. 4---6).
Claims 3, 5, 7-10, 13, 15, 16, and 19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as being unpatentable over Shafer and Totten (id. at 7-9).
2
Appeal 2018-002623
Application 14/326,589
Claim 6 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable
over Shafer, Totten, and Sung (id. at 9--10).
Claim 20 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable
over Shafer and Tanabe (id. at 10).
ISSUE
35 USC§ 102(a)(l)
Appellants contend their invention, as recited in claims 1, 2, 4, 11, 12,
14, 17, 18, and 21, is patentable over Shafer (App. Br. 7-10). The issue
presented by the arguments is whether the Examiner has shown Shafer
discloses "inserting a multi-frequency test signal into the cable network with
a transmitter at the first point at a power level below that of active signals on
the cable network," as recited in claim 1 (App. Br. 7-10; Reply Br. 5-13).
Specifically, Appellants argue Shafer's "injected signal is described as being
at a first power level approximating the downstream cable provider signals"
and so "cannot be reasonably interpreted as being below the power level of
the active signals on the cable network" (App. Br. 8-9; Reply Br. 6-7).
Appellants further argue that, although Shafter's injected test signal's power
level attenuates and lowers as the test signal reflects off network components
and propagates through Shafer's cable network, that propagated lower-
power test signal is not an "insert[ed]" test signal (App. Br. 6-7, 9--10;
Reply Br. 9).
We are persuaded by Appellants' contentions. The Examiner relies
on (Ans. 9; Final Act. 4) Shafer's description of
a test signal [that] is generated ... and injected at a first power
level and propagates through the cable port. In one example, the
first power level approximates the signal strength of the cable
3
Appeal 2018-002623
Application 14/326,589
provider's downstream bandwidth (e.g., -15 to+ 15 dBm V) ....
As the test signal propagates through the drop system, it reflects
off devices and components in the coaxial line, thereby
decreasing the initial power level. The reflected signal
propagates back towards the connector portion 46 of the
diagnostic device 36 and enters the diplexer circuit 72 at a
second, lower power level
(Shafer ,r 29; see id ,r,r 8-9). Based on Shafer's injected test signal at a first
power level and reflected test signal that enters a diplexer circuit at a second,
lower, power level, the Examiner determines that "Shafer discloses that the
first power level is a power level below that of active signals on the cable
network" (Ans. 9; Final Act. 2-3).
Shafer, however, indicates that the first power level of its injected test
signal "approximates the signal strength of the cable provider's downstream
bandwidth (e.g., -15 to+ 15 dBm V)" (Shafer ,r 29). Thus, Shafer discloses,
the injected test signal's power level is the power level of the cable
provider's active signal, rather than "at a power level below that of active
signals on the cable network." The Examiner has not set forth with
specificity how the power level of Shafer's injected test signal, i.e., the first
power level, is lower than any other active signal's power level on Shafer's
cable network.
Furthermore, to the extent the Examiner relies on the test signal's
reception at the diplexer circuit at the second, lower, power level to disclose
an "insert[ ed] ... test signal into the cable network" (Ans. 10), Shafer
describes that the test signal has already been inserted into the cable network
when the test signal is received by the diplexer circuit (see Shafer ,r 29 ("a
test signal is generated ... and injected at a first power level and propagates
through the cable port ... [the] signal propagates back towards the
4
Appeal 2018-002623
Application 14/326,589
connector portion 46 of the diagnostic device 36 and enters the diplexer
circuit 72 at a second, lower power level")). Although the test signal's first
power level is lowered as it propagates through the cable network to a lower
second power level (id.), that second power level is not the test signal's
"insert[ed] ... power level" into the cable network as required by claim 1
( claim 1 ( emphasis added)). Rather, that second power level is the test
signal's power level as it propagates through the cable network and enters
the diplexer circuit, having already been inserted into the cable network (see
Shafer ,r 29). The Examiner has not explained with sufficient detail how
Shafer's test signal that is received by Shafer's diplexer is "insert[ed] ...
into the cable network ... at a power level below that of active signals," as
recited in claim 1.
Dependent claims 2-20 stand with independent claim 1. Because we
agree with Appellants' argument that the Examiner erred in finding Shafer
anticipates independent claim 1, we need not reach the merits of Appellants'
other arguments directed to dependent claims 2-20 (see App. Br. 10-13).
Additionally, the Examiner rejects claim 21 based on the same
findings and reasoning relied upon in the rejection of claim 1 (Final Act. 6;
see Ans. 8-10). Similar to the reasons set forth above, the Examiner has not
sufficiently shown where or explained how Shafer describes "a transmitter
configured to provide a multi-frequency test signal to the cable network at
the first point thereof at a power level below that of active signals on the
cable network," as recited in claim 21.
Therefore, we do not sustain the rejections of claims 1, 2, 4, 11, 12,
14, 17, 18, and 21 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(l) as anticipated by Shafer,
claims 3, 5, 7-10, 13, 15, 16, and 19 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable
5
Appeal 2018-002623
Application 14/326,589
over Shafer and Totten, claim 6 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over
Shafer, Totten, and Sung, and claim 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Shafer and Tanabe.
DECISION
The Examiner's rejection of claims 1, 2, 4, 11, 12, 14, 17, 18, and 21
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(l) as being anticipated by Shafer is reversed.
The Examiner's rejection of claims 3, 5, 7-10, 13, 15, 16, and 19
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Shafer and Totten is
reversed.
The Examiner's rejection of claim 6 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Shafer, Totten, and Sung is reversed.
The Examiner's rejection of claim 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Shafer and Tanabe is reversed.
REVERSED
6