Ex Parte Pugel et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Nov 30, 2012

10548926 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 30, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
_____________

Ex parte MICHAEL ANTHONY PUGEL, DOUGLAS
EDWARD LANKFORD, JOHN JOSEPH CURTIS III, KEITH
REYNOLDS WEHMEYER, MIKE ARTHUR
DERRENBERGER, TERRY WAYNE LOCKRIDGE, and
ANDREW ERIC BOWYER
____________________

Appeal 2010-007484
Application 10/548,926
Technology Center 2400
____________________

Before ERIC B. CHEN, JOHNNY A. KUMAR, and TREVOR M.
JEFFERSON, Administrative Patent Judges.

JEFFERSON, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2010-007484
Application 10/548,926
2
STATEMENT OF CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a non-final rejection of
claims 1-27, all the claims pending in the application. We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.

The claims are directed to apparatus and method for storing content,
such as audio, video and/or data, and for distributing such content by down-
converting to vacant channels of existing coaxial cable infrastructure. Spec.
1:10-14. Claim 1, reproduced below with disputed limitation in italics, is
illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. A server apparatus comprising:
processing means for receiving broadcast program
signals from a broadcast source and processing said received
signals to generate broadcast program digital data;
memory means for recording said broadcast program
digital data;
control means for enabling retrieval of said digital data
from said memory means, wherein said control means further
detects an available frequency band on a transmission medium;
encoding means for encoding said retrieved digital data
to generate encoded digital signals;
digital-to-analog converting means for converting said
encoded digital signals to analog signals; and
modulating means for modulating said analog signals to
generate processed analog signals, wherein said processed
analog signals are provided to a client device via said
transmission medium connecting said server apparatus and said
client device, and wherein said available frequency band is used
to provide said processed analog signals to said client device,
thereby causing said transmission medium to be shared between
said processed analog signals and cable broadcast signals
distributed over said transmission medium.

Appeal 2010-007484
Application 10/548,926
3
REJECTIONS
The Examiner made the following rejections:
Claims 1-5, 7-14, 16-23, and 25-27 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Laksono (US 7,200,855 B2, Apr. 3,
2007) and Williams (US 6,134,419, Oct. 17, 2000). Ans. 4-9.
Claims 6, 15, and 24 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Laksono, Williams and Ansari (US 7,260,825 B2, Aug.
21, 2007). Ans. 10.
Appellants make separate arguments for independent claim 1 and a
related argument for independent claims 10 and 19. Appellants make no
separate arguments for dependent claims 2-9, 11-18 and 20-27. We address
Appellants’ arguments for claims 1, 10 and 19.

ISSUES
Did the Examiner err in combining the teachings of Laksono and
Williams?
Did the Examiner err in finding that the combination of Williams and
Laksono teaches or suggests a “control means [that] further detects an
available frequency band on a transmission medium,” as recited in claim 1,
“detecting an available frequency band on a transmission medium,” as
recited in claim 10 or a “controller [that] further detects an available
frequency band on a transmission medium,” as recited in claim 19?

ANALYSIS
Appellants contend that Laksono fails to teach a “control means for
enabling retrieval of said digital data from said memory means, wherein said
control means further detects an available frequency band on a transmission
Appeal 2010-007484
Application 10/548,926
4
medium” as recited in claim 1. Br. 11. Appellants argue that because
“Laksono multiplexes a plurality of programs onto a single channel”
(Laksono col. 5, ll. 46-48), using a control means which detects an available
frequency band on a transmission medium in the method Laksono teaches
“would be useless.” Id. Because of this purported uselessness, Appellants
conclude that the combination of Laksono with Williams is not proper. Id.
In response, the Examiner articulates that Laksono does not teach
multiplexing, but instead teaches “modulat[ing] using [various analog and
digital methods] to create a stream of channel data for transmission to the
various client devices ([Laskono], Col. 37, lines 1-5).” Ans. 12. The
Examiner asserts that Laksono in combination with Williams modulates
signals for distribution onto available frequency bands. Id
We are not persuaded by Appellants’ arguments that the Examiner
erred. We agree with the Examiner that “Laksono teaches a multimedia
server that receives broadcast television signals, local video signals, etc. and
provides the video to a plurality of client devices.” Ans. 11. We also find
that Williams “teaches a transmodulator device that receives analog and
digital broadcast signals from different sources and is able to transmodulate
the signals onto an available unused frequency band for distribution to a
plurality of client devices.” Ans. 11; see also Williams, col. 10, ll. 1-34.
Contrary to Appellants’ argument that the combination of Laksono
and Williams would prove “useless,” the Examiner has provided a rational
basis for the combination of Laksono and Williams, namely “to improve the
multimedia server and media distribution system of Laksono for the purpose
of using the available frequency spectra more efficiently in a multiple client
device environment (Williams [c]ol. 6, ll. 44-51).” Ans. 12. The citation of
Ansari in combination with Laksono and Williams for dependent claims 6,
Appeal 2010-007484
Application 10/548,926
5
15 and 24, Ans. 10, does not undermine the Examiner’s support for the
combination of Laksono and Williams. Ans. 12. Both Williams and
Laksono employ modulation techniques for distribution of signals, while
Williams teaches the “transmodulating video signals onto available carrier
frequencies.” Ans. 12. Accordingly, the Examiner did not err in combining
Laksono and Williams in the rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C § 103(a).
Finally, we are also not persuaded by Appellants’ argument that
Laksono fails to teach or suggest “detecting an available frequency band on
a transmission medium” as recited in claim 10, Ans. 11, or “a controller
operative … detect[] an available frequency band on a transmission
medium” as recited in claim 19, Ans. 12. One cannot show nonobviousness
by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on
combinations of references. See In re Merck & Co., Inc., 800 F.2d 1091,
1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Indeed, the Examiner cited Williams, not Laksono,
for teaching modulating signals onto a detected unused frequency. Ans. 12
(discussing Williams, col. 6, ll. 52-67).
Based on the foregoing, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of
independent claims 1, 10 and 19 under 35 U.S.C § 103(a). We also sustain
the Examiner’s rejection of the dependent claims 2-9, 11-18 and 20-27.

DECISION
For the above reasons, the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-27 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).

Appeal 2010-007484
Application 10/548,926
6
AFFIRMED

tj