Ex Parte Waight et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jul 26, 2012

09811702 (B.P.A.I. Jul. 26, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________________

Ex parte MATTHEW WAIGHT, YUCHENG JIN, and KEVIN T. CHANG
____________________

Appeal 2010-008403
Application 09/811,702
Technology Center 2400
____________________

Before ST. JOHN COURTENAY, III, THU A. DANG,
and GREGORY J. GONSALVES, Administrative Patent Judges.

DANG, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2010-008403
Application 09/811,702

2
I. STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a Final Rejection of
claims 1, 4, 5, 8, 9, 12, and 13 (App. Br. 2). Claims 2, 3, 6, 7, 10, and 11
have been canceled (Appendix A of App. Br., at A-2 to A-4). We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.
A. INVENTION
Appellants’ invention is directed to a cable modem that controls the
power consumption of the cable modem using a Media Access Control
(MAC) processor chip; wherein, when upstream traffic is approaching, the
MAC chip generates an upstream control signal (US_OE) for signaling a
Complex Programmable Logic Device (CPLD) to generate an upstream
switching signal (US-SWI) and an upstream amplifier signal (US_AMP)
(Abstract; ¶¶ [0026]-[0028]). The US-SWI controls a switch that
disables/enables upstream data traffic and the US_AMP turns an amplifier in
the path of the upstream data on and off; wherein, the US_SWI is actuated
after the US_OE (id.).

B. ILLUSTRATIVE CLAIM
Claim 1 is exemplary:
1. A cable modem for receiving down stream and
transmitting upstream communication signals to a cable
network having an upstream power control system for
controlling power consumption comprising:

a MAC chip for synchronizing upstream communication
signals, and outputting an upstream control signal;

Appeal 2010-008403
Application 09/811,702

3
an upstream amplifier for receiving synchronized
upstream communication signals from said MAC chip; and

a complex programmable logic device (CPLD), coupled
to said MAC chip and said upstream amplifier, which controls
said upstream amplifier in response to the upstream control
signal from said MAC chip, such that said CPLD causes said
upstream amplifier to power on during transmission of
upstream signals and power off when not transmitting said
upstream signals, thereby reducing power consumption of the
cable modem,

wherein said CPLD generates an amplifier switch signal
for connecting said upstream amplifier to an RF tuner for
transmission of said upstream data signal to said headend, and
an amplifier control signal for powering on and off said
upstream amplifier, and

wherein said CPLD generates said amplifier switch
signal after said amplifier control signal is generated, thereby
stabilizing said upstream amplifier.

C. REJECTION
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
McMullan US 5,251,324 Oct. 5, 1993
Jung US 6,678,893 B1 Jan. 13, 2004

Claims 1, 4, 5, 8, 9, 12, and 13 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §
103(a) as being unpatentable over McMullan in view of Jung.

II. ISSUE
The dispositive issue before us is whether the Examiner has erred in
finding that the combination of McMullan and Jung teaches or would have
Appeal 2010-008403
Application 09/811,702

4
suggested “wherein said CPLD generates said amplifier switch signal after
said amplifier control signal is generated, thereby stabilizing said upstream
amplifier” (claim 1, emphasis added).

III. FINDINGS OF FACT
The following Findings of Fact (FF) are shown by a preponderance of
the evidence.
McMullan
1. McMullan discloses a set-top terminal having a microprocessor
400 that couples to a RF-IPPV module which includes another
microprocessor 504 that determines when to transmit an upstream signal
based upon instructions sent from the headend (Figs. 3 and 4; col. 11, 44-
60).
2. The microprocessor 504 enables RF circuitry including an
amplifier 509 (Fig. 4).
3. The microprocessor 504 also provides a signal to the anti-
babble control circuit 513 which generates a signal to turn on and off
amplifier 509; wherein, the amplifier is only on for a predetermined period
of time estimated for transmitting messages (Fig. 4; col. 13, ll. 14-35).
Jung
4. Jung discloses a cable set-top box terminal having a pilot signal
generator and a switch 617; wherein, the pilot signal generator 610 includes
an amplifier 612 (Fig. 6; col. 4, ll. 49-60 and col. 4, l. 66-col. 5, l.12).
5. Since the pilot signal generator 610 may cause interference
with signals, it is switched off using the switch 617 when not requested by
Appeal 2010-008403
Application 09/811,702

5
the headend (col. 4, ll. 49-57). A computer processing unit (CPU) 609
controls the switch 617 (Fig. 6).

IV. ANALYSIS
Claims 1, 4, 5, 8, 9, 12, and 13
As to independent claim 1, Appellants contend that “[n]either
McMullan nor Jung, taken alone or in combination, disclose or suggest …
generat[ing] an amplifier switch signal after the amplifier control signal is
generated, thereby stabilizing said upstream amplifier” (App. Br. 6-7).
However, the Examiner finds that Jung “teaches the steps of sending a
requested pilot signal to the head-end through an amplifier 612;” wherein,
“[t]he first step requires a power (control) signal to turn on the pilot signal
generator” and “[a] later step requires the switch to be activated to connect
the pilot signal (and Amplifier 612) to the tuner” (Final OA. 5). The
Examiner notes that “[t]he two steps that take place in that order meet the
fact that the CPLD generates the amplifier switch signal after the amplifier
control signal is generated, thereby stabilizing said upstream amplifier”
(Final OA. 5-6).
After reviewing the record on appeal, we agree with Appellants.
Though we agree with the Examiner that McMullan does disclose a
microprocessor that generates a control signal and a signal to power the
amplifier on and off (FF 3) and Jung does disclose a switching signal that
disables upstream traffic from an amplifier in the pilot generator (FF 5), we
cannot find any suggestion that the combination of McMullan and Jung
teaches a circuit that “generates said amplifier switch signal after said
amplifier control signal is generated” as required by claim 1(emphasis
Appeal 2010-008403
Application 09/811,702

6
added) in the recited portions of McMullan and Jung referenced by the
Examiner. That is, since the claim positively recites an order for the
generation of the signals, the mere combination of a circuit that generates an
amplifier control signal as disclosed in McMullan with a circuit that
generates amplifier switch signal as disclosed in Jung would not teach this
positively recited feature of the order of the signals.
Further, although the Examiner finds that Jung discloses a “first step
require[ing that] a power (control) signal … turn on the pilot signal
generator” and “[a] later step require[ing that] the switch … be activated to
connect the pilot signal (and Amplifier 612) to the tuner” (Final OA. 5), we
find that Jung is silent as to a control signal generated in a first step in the
recited portion of Jung.
Therefore, the combined teachings of McMullan and Jung cannot
teach or suggest a cable modem “wherein said CPLD generates said
amplifier switch signal after said amplifier control signal is generated,
thereby stabilizing said upstream amplifier” (Claim 1).
Accordingly, we find that Appellants have shown that the Examiner
erred in rejecting claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over McMullan in view
of Jung. Further, independent claims 5 and 9 having similar claim
limitations and claims 4, 8, 12, and 13 (depending from claims 1, 5, and 9)
which have not been argued separately stand with claim 1.

V. CONCLUSION AND DECISION
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 4, 5, 8, 9, 12, and 13 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) is reversed.

Appeal 2010-008403
Application 09/811,702

7
REVERSED

peb