Ex Parte Beeler et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 8, 2017

13024402 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 8, 2017)

United States Patent and Trademark Office
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
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
13/024,402 02/10/2011 Michael Beeler 1244.074 1630
54434 7590 09/12/2017
BOOTH UDALL FULLER, PLC
1255 W. Rio Salado Pkwy.
Suite 215
Tempe, AZ 85281
EXAMINER
MCKIE, GINA M
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2631
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/12/2017 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@BOOTHUDALL.COM
reception @ boothudall .com
aho @boothudall. com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte MICHAEL BEELER, FREDERICK MORRIS, JEFFERY HARIG,
and CRIS MAMARIL
Appeal 2016-004273
Application 13/024,4021
Technology Center 2600
Before MAHSHID D. SAADAT, NORMAN H. BEAMER,
and MICHAEL J. ENGLE, Administrative Patent Judges.
BEAMER, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
Final Rejection of claims 1—7, 9—11, 17, 22—26, 28, 29, 31, 32, 37-41, and
47. Claims 8, 12—16, 18—21, 30, 33—36, and 42-46 are objected to as being
dependent upon a rejected base claim, but the Examiner states they would be
allowable if rewritten in independent form. Final Act. 29. Claim 27 is
cancelled. We have jurisdiction over the pending rejected claims under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.
1 Appellants identify Comtech EF Data Corporation as the real party in
interest. (App. Br. 2.)
Appeal 2016-004273
Application 13/024,402
THE INVENTION
Appellants’ disclosed and claimed invention is directed to embedding
a meta-carrier signal, containing information about an original carrier signal,
under the original carrier signal with reduced or minimal original carrier
signal degradation. (Abstract.)
Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject
matter:
1. A communication method for embedding a meta-carrier
signal under an original carrier signal, the method comprising:
embedding information to identify a transmission source
of at least one of an original carrier signal and an interfering
carrier signal by forming a composite carrier comprising a
meta-carrier signal combined with the at least one of the
original carrier signal and the interfering carrier signal, the
composite carrier being formed after the meta-carrier signal is
modulated as the meta-carrier signal and after the at least one of
the original carrier signal and the interfering carrier signal is
modulated as its respective carrier signal separate from the
meta-carrier signal, the meta-carrier signal comprising
information to identify the transmission source of the at least
one of the original carrier signal and the interfering carrier
signal with which it is transmitted as the composite carrier;
transmitting the composite carrier to a receiver;
wherein the meta-carrier signal is extractable at the receiver
under an interfered condition without demodulating the original
carrier signal or the interfering carrier signal, the interfered
condition caused by interference between the original carrier
signal and the interfering carrier signal, wherein the meta­
carrier signal is transmitted such that the meta-carrier signal
occupies at least a portion of a bandwidth of the respective at
least one of the original carrier signal and the interfering carrier
signal whose transmission source the meta-carrier signal
identifies.
2
Appeal 2016-004273
Application 13/024,402
REJECTIONS
The Examiner rejected claims 1—4 and 24—26 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Kumar (US 5,748,677, issued May 5,
1998) and Keating (US 2002/0122566 Al, pub. Sept. 5, 2002). (Final Act.
7-14.)
The Examiner rejected claims 5—7, 9-11, 17, 22, 28, 29, 31, 32, 37,
40, 41, and 47 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Kumar,
Keating, and Lee et al. (US 5,937,000, issued Aug. 10, 1999). (Final Act.
14—24.)
The Examiner rejected claims 23 and 38 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Kumar, Keating, Lee, and Sun et al. (US
2003/0224723 Al, pub. Dec. 4, 2003). (Final Act. 25-26.)
The Examiner rejected claim 39 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Kumar, Keating, Lee, and Epstein et al. (US
2004/0042635 Al, pub. Mar. 4, 2004). (Final Act. 27-28.)
ISSUE ON APPEAL
Appellants’ arguments in the Appeal Brief present the following
dispositive issue:2
Whether the Examiner erred in finding the combination of Kumar
and Keating teaches or suggests the independent claim 1 limitation, “the
meta-carrier signal comprising information to identify the transmission
2 Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellants and the findings of the
Examiner, we refer to the Appeal Brief (filed Aug. 14, 2015, “App. Br.”);
the Reply Brief (filed Mar. 11, 2016 “Reply Br.”); the Final Office Action
(mailed Mar. 19, 2015, “Final Act.”); and the Examiner’s Answer (mailed
Jan. 14, 2016, “Ans.”) for the respective details.
3
Appeal 2016-004273
Application 13/024,402
source of the at least one of the original carrier signal and the interfering
carrier signal,” and the commensurate limitation recited in independent
claim 24. (App. Br. 16—17.)
ANALYSIS
For the limitation at issue, the Examiner concedes Kumar “does not
specifically disclose” the subject matter at issue, and relies on the disclosure
in Keating of a watermarking system in which meta-data is embedded into a
video image which describes the image or identifies some attributes of the
content of the image itself. (Final Act. 8; Keating Fig. 2,144.)
Appellants argue the meta-data in Keating is not information that is
used to identity the transmission source of a carrier signal as required by the
claims. (App. Br. 16.) In the Answer, the Examiner maintains reliance on
the Keating watermark meta-data, but also cites the disclosure in Kumar of a
reference signal that can contain a PN (pseudo-noise) sequence. (Ans. 7;
Kumar col. 5,11. 28—30.) Although the reference signal of Kumar is used for
synchronization and not identification, the Examiner refers to an additional
patent, not cited in any rejection, as disclosing use of PN-sequences for
identification purposes. (Id. )
We are persuaded the Examiner errs. The only references cited for
the obviousness rejections are Kumar and Keating, and neither teach or
suggest using meta-data to identify transmission source. The possibility that
PN sequences may be capable of identifying a transmission source is not
taught or suggested by the cited references.
Moreover, we are also persuaded the Examiner errs based on the
December 1, 2016 Decision of a Panel of this Board in Ex parte Beeler,
4
Appeal 2016-004273
Application 13/024,402
Appeal No. 2016-000980, 2016 WL 7423727 (PTAB Nov. 29, 2016)
(“Decision”). That Decision relates to a continuation-in-part of the present
Application, in which the Panel did not sustain the Examiner’s finding that the
same Keating patent as relied on here teaches or suggests, in similar claims, the
requirement, “the meta-carrier signal contains information about the original
carrier signal including one or more characteristics of the original carrier
signal.” {Id. at *2.) The Panel held:
[T]he Examiner’s findings fail to show that Keating’s
embedded data includes information about an original carrier
signal, as required by claim 1. Instead, we agree with
Appellants (App. Br. 15) that Keating merely teaches that the
embedded data “describes the image or identifies some
attributes of the content of the image itself.” Keating, Fig. 2;
144.
{Beeler, 2016 WL 7423727, at *2.) This holding is persuasive in all
pertinent respects to the issue before us. Keating teaches “[t]he meta data
may be. . . [an] identification of the owner” of the image (1 54), but the
Examiner has not persuaded us that Keating teaches or suggests an
identification of the transmission source of the signals.
Therefore, on the record before us, we are constrained to conclude the
Examiner errs in rejecting independent claims 1 and 24.3
3 As a separate matter, we note the Examiner appears to interpret the claim
requirement, “identifying] a transmission source of at least one of an
original carrier signal and an interfering carrier signal,” as requiring
identification of a transmission source of either an original carrier signal or
an interfering carrier signal. (Final Act. 7—8.) However, where “[t]he
phrase ‘at least one of’ precedes a series of categories . . . and the patentee
used the term ‘and’ to separate the categories,” the Federal Circuit has held
“the phrase ‘at least one of’ modifies each member of the list.” SuperGuide
5
Appeal 2016-004273
Application 13/024,402
CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated above, we do not sustain the obviousness
rejection of independent claims 1 and 24 over Kumar and Keating. We also
do not sustain the obviousness rejections of claims 2-4, 25, and 26 over
Kumar and Keating, of claims 5—7, 9-11, 17, 22, 28, 29, 31, 32, 37, 40, 41,
and 47 over Kumar, Keating, and Lee, of claims 23 and 38 over Kumar,
Keating, Lee, and Sun, and of claim 39 over Kumar, Keating, Lee, and
Epstein, all of which claims are dependent from claims 1 or 24.
DECISION
We reverse the Examiner’s rejections of claims 1—7, 9-11, 17, 22—26,
28,29,31,32, 37-41, and 47.
REVERSED
Corp. v. DirecTV Enters., Inc., 358 F.3d 870, 886 (Fed. Cir. 2004)
(emphasis added).
6