Ex Parte Chang

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 12, 2018

13906933 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 12, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/906,933 05/31/2013
23446 7590 12/14/2018
MCANDREWS HELD & MALLOY, LTD
500 WEST MADISON STREET
SUITE 3400
CHICAGO, IL 60661
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Glenn Chang
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.
25601US02 3507
EXAMINER
SALTARELLI, DOMINIC D
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2421
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/14/2018 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):
mhmpto@mcandrews-ip.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte GLENN CHANG
Appeal2018-002634
Application 13/906,933 1
Technology Center 2400
Before DEBRA K. STEPHENS, DANIEL J. GALLIGAN, and
DAVID J. CUTITTA II, Administrative Patent Judges.
GALLIGAN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Introduction
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of
claims 1-20, which are all of the claims pending in the application. We
have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
WeAFFIRM. 2
1 Appellant is the Applicant, Maxlinear Inc., which according to the Appeal
Brief, is the real party in interest. App. Br. 2.
2 Our Decision refers to Appellant's Appeal Brief filed September 21, 201 7
("App. Br."); Appellant's Reply Brief filed January 16, 2018 ("Reply Br.");
Examiner's Answer mailed November 16, 2017 ("Ans."); and Final Office
Action mailed March 28, 2017 ("Final Act.").
Appeal2018-002634
Application 13/906,933
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Claims on Appeal
Claims 1, 11, and 20 are independent claims. Claim 1 is reproduced
below:
1. A system, comprising:
a signal reception assembly that is configured to receive a
first signal from a first source and a second signal from a second
source, wherein one of the first source and the second source is
a satellite source and the other one is a non-satellite source; and
a processing circuitry that is configured to:
process the first signal and the second signal, wherein the
. .
processmg comprises:
converting the first signal to match at least some
characteristics of the second signal, the converting comprising
re-modulating intermediate signals generated during said
processing of said first signal based on modulation applied to
said second signal at said second source; and
processing data carried in the first signal that is encoded
and/or formatted in accordance with a first standard applied to
signals originating from the first source, to conform to a second
standard for encoding and/ or formatting of data, different than
the first standard, that is applied to signals originating from the
second source; and
after completing said processing the first signal and the
second signal, including completing said converting and said
processing data, generate an output signal, wherein:
the output signal comprises one or more portions from
each of the processed first signal and the processed second
signal, and the one or more portions are stacked within the output
signal.
Reference
Petrovic US 2009/0290659 Al Nov. 26, 2009
2
Appeal2018-002634
Application 13/906,933
Examiner's Rejection
Claims 1-20 stand rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
being anticipated by Petrovic. Final Act. 3---6.
Our review in this appeal is limited only to the above rejection and the
issues raised by Appellant. Arguments not made are waived. See MPEP
§ 1205.02; 37 C.F.R. §§ 4I.37(c)(l)(iv) and 4I.39(a)(l).
ANALYSIS
Independent Claims l, 11, and 20
Appellant contends the Examiner erred in finding Petrovic discloses
the claimed processing of the first and second signals and the generating of
an output signal, as recited in claim 1 and similarly recited in claims 11 and
20. App. Br. 7-11; Reply Br. 3-7. Specifically, Appellant argues that the
claimed "remodulation performed when converting signals [is] done before
any switching or stacking that is performed as part of generating output
signals," but Petrovic' s "re-modulation [as] disclosed in ,r 0054 ... is clearly
described as being performed to signals outputted by the DSSP 150, and thus
after the stacking has been done." App. Br. 9-10; Reply Br. 5---6. That is,
Appellant argues Petrovic stacks signal portions before the processing of
those signal portions is complete to generate an output signal, rather than
generating an output signal by stacking those signal portions after processing
those signal portions.
We are not persuaded. The Examiner finds (Final Act. 3), and we
agree, Petrovic's "[s]ignals 102, 104 ... received from a plurality of [Radio
Frequency (RF)] Sources" (Petrovic ,r 29, Figs. 3--4, 9-10) disclose "the first
signal and the second signal." The Examiner further finds (Final Act. 4),
3
Appeal2018-002634
Application 13/906,933
and we agree, Petrovic processes signals 102 and 104 in "DAC and Complex
to Real Conversion stage 109" by "re-modulat[ing] the signal to a format
compliant with a desired signal protocol or standard" using "upconverter
180," resulting in "upconverted composite signal 188" (id. ,r 54, Fig. 4; see
id. at Figs. 9-10), thereby disclosing "process[ing] the first signal and the
second signal" by "re-modulating intermediate signals" and "processing
data," as recited in claim 1.
We also agree with the Examiner's finding (Ans. 2; Final Act. 2, 4--5)
that Petrovic' s signal combiner 690, which "combines the first and second
composite signals 188 and 688 into a combined composite signal 698"
(Petrovic ,r 106, Fig. 1 O; see id. ,r 97, 100), discloses "after completing said
processing the first signal and the second signal ... generat[ ing] an output
signal, wherein ... one or more portions are stacked within the output
signal." That is, according to the Examiner, Petrovic's RF source signals
102, 104, 602, 604 are processed through upconverters 180, 680 resulting in
processed stacked (i.e., composite) signals 188 and 688; after that
processing, composite signals 188 and 688 are then input to signal combiner
690, which generates combined composite signal 698. Id. at Fig. 10.
Appellant's argument (App. Br. 9-10; Reply Br. 5---6) does not
address the Examiner's finding that combined composite signal 698,
generated by combiner 690, discloses "generat[ing] an output signal" "after
completing said processing" (Ans. 2; Final Act. 2). In particular, Appellant
highlights Petrovic' s "re-modulation ... performed to signals outputted by
the DSSP 150" which occurs "after the stacking has been done." App.
Br. 1 O; Reply Br. 6; see Petrovic, Fig. 4. However, even if the signal
generated by DSSP 150, i.e., composite signal 158 (Petrovic ,r 53), is a
4
Appeal2018-002634
Application 13/906,933
signal with stacked portions, the Examiner has not relied on composite
signal 158 to disclose the claimed "output signal" that is generated after
signal processing. Similarly, Appellant's discussion of Figure 10 of Petrovic
(Reply Br. 6-7; App. Br. 11) highlights the composite signals 158 and 168
generated by DSSP 150 and 650.
The Examiner, however, has not relied on either of composite signals
158 or 168 to disclose the claimed "output signal" generated after signal
processing. Rather, the Examiner relies on combined composite signal 698,
generated by combiner 690, to disclose the claimed "output signal" that is
generated after signal processing. Ans. 2; Final Act. 2. As discussed above,
the stacking of signal portions by combiner 690 to generate combined
composite signal 698 occurs after the conversion and processing provided
by upconverters 180, 680. Petrovic, Fig. 10.
Accordingly, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in finding
Petrovic discloses the claimed processing of the first and second signals and
the generating of an output signal, as recited in claim 1 and similarly recited
in claims 11 and 20.
Dependent Claims 2 and 12
Appellant contends the Examiner erred in finding Petrovic discloses
"a terrestrial television broadcast source," as recited in claim 2 and similarly
recited in claim 12. App. Br. 12-13; Reply Br. 8-10. Specifically,
Appellant argues "Petrovic omits any express mention of 'terrestrial' or
'over-the-air' broadcasts." Reply Br. 9. Appellant further argues that "even
if [Petrovic' s source] input signal was 100 MHz, it was not intended to be
5
Appeal2018-002634
Application 13/906,933
'terrestrial' because Petrovic did not specifically state as much." Reply
Br. 9-10.
We are not persuaded. We agree with the Examiner's finding that
(Final Act. 2-3; Ans. 3) Petrovic's description of broadcast source signals
"in the range of 100 MHz-5 GHz" (Petrovic ,r 29) discloses "a terrestrial
television broadcast source."
Although Petrovic does not "express[ly] mention [any] 'terrestrial' or
'over-the-air' broadcasts" (Reply Br. 9-10), the "dispositive question
regarding anticipation is whether one skilled in the art would reasonably
understand or infer from the prior art reference's teaching that every claim
element was disclosed in that single reference." Dayco Prods., Inc. v. Total
Containment, Inc., 329 F.3d 1358, 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (internal alterations
and quotation marks omitted) (quoting In re Baxter Travenol Labs., 952
F.2d 388,390 (Fed. Cir. 1991)). Here, we agree with the Examiner's finding
that an ordinarily skilled artisan would understand that the frequency range
of broadcast signals described by Petrovic discloses "a terrestrial television
broadcast source." The Examiner points out the ordinarily skilled artisan
would understand that the broadcast signal frequency range Petrovic
describes, namely, 100 MHz-5 GHz, includes terrestrial broadcast signals.
See Final Act. 3. Indeed, Appellant's Specification makes it clear that "UHF
or VHF band signals," broadcasting respectively at 300 MHz-3 GHz and
30-300 MHz, "may typically be allocated for use in terrestrial televisions
broadcast." Spec. ,r 23. Because Petrovic discloses broadcasting signals
from 100 MHz-5 GHz and Appellant's Specification discloses that
terrestrial signals are "typically" broadcast from 30 MHz-3 GHz, one of
ordinary skill in the art would have understood that Petrovic' s disclosure
6
Appeal2018-002634
Application 13/906,933
describes receiving signals from "a terrestrial television broadcast source,"
as recited in claim 2 and similarly recited in claim 12.
Dependent Claims 3 and 13
Appellant contends the Examiner erred in finding Petrovic discloses
"a satellite signal reflector, configured for capturing satellite signals," as
recited in claim 3 and similarly recited in claim 13. App. Br. 13-14; Reply
Br. 10. Specifically, Appellant argues the Examiner does not "explicitly
address[] the features and elements in claims 3 and 13." App. Br. 14.
We are not persuaded because Appellant's arguments do not address
the Examiner's findings. The Examiner relies on Petrovic' s description of
receiving RF signals by a "satellite antenna" to teach "a satellite signal
reflector, configured for capturing satellite signals." Final Act. 3 ( citing
Petrovic ,r,r 29-30). Specifically, the Examiner finds "the satellite receivers
used by Petrovic are shown in fig. 1 (satellite receivers 1205), which
comprise satellite signal reflectors configured for capturing satellite signals
as claimed." Ans. 3. Indeed, Petrovic's Figure 1 illustrates receivers 1205
as including antennas and Petrovic details that "a plurality of RF signals
1232 may be received by one or more antennas." Petrovic ,r 5; see also id.
,r 54 ("a satellite receiving system ... provided proximate to the satellite
antenna"). Accordingly, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in finding
Petrovic discloses "a satellite signal reflector, configured for capturing
satellite signals," as recited in claim 3 and similarly recited in claim 13.
7
Appeal2018-002634
Application 13/906,933
Dependent Claims 4 and 14
Appellant contends the Examiner erred in finding Petrovic discloses
"an antenna component, configured for capturing terrestrial television
signals," as recited in claim 4 and similarly recited in claim 14. App. Br. 14;
Reply Br. 10-14. Specifically, Appellant argues the Examiner does not
"explicitly address[] the features and elements in claims 4 and 14." App.
Br. 14. Further, Appellant argues that even if "one of [Petrovic's] input
signals may be a signal in ... a frequency band that may be used for
terrestrial broadcasts ... this does not necessarily require that the system
disclosed in Petrovic include a terrestrial antenna." Reply Br. 11.
We are not persuaded. The Examiner finds, and we agree, Petrovic
discloses "an antenna component" that captures signals in the 100 MHz-5
GHz range. Final Act. 3 ( citing Petrovic ,r 29); Ans. 4. As discussed above,
Petrovic details that "a plurality of RF signals 1232 may be received by one
or more antennas." Petrovic ,r 5. And, as also discussed above, Appellant's
Specification discloses that terrestrial signals are "typically" broadcast at 30
MHz-3 GHz, i.e., "UHF or VHF band signals." Spec. ,r 23.
As to Appellant's argument "requir[ing] that the system disclosed in
Petrovic include a terrestrial antenna" (Reply Br. 11 ), the claims merely
require an "antenna component" that is "configured for capturing terrestrial
television signals." Because Appellant's Specification discloses that
terrestrial signals are typically broadcast at 30 MHz-3 GHz and Petrovic's
antenna captures broadcast signals in that range, namely, 100 MHz-5 GHz,
Petrovic discloses that its antenna is "configured for capturing terrestrial
television signals," as recited in claim 4 and similarly recited in claim 14.
8
Appeal2018-002634
Application 13/906,933
Dependent Claims 9 and 18
Appellant contends the Examiner erred in finding Petrovic discloses
"communicat[ing] the output signal over a single link," as recited in claim 9
and similarly recited in claim 18. App. Br. 15-17; Reply Br. 12.
Specifically, Appellant argues "[ w ]hile Petrovic does disclose at ,r 0054 that
its 'output signal 158 [is] in a format of that complies with [MoCA]
standard, or Ethernet IP TV,' Petrovic does not disclose that the output
signal is communicated over a single link." App. Br. 16-17 (alterations in
original).
We are not persuaded. The Examiner finds, and we agree "[a]s shown
in [Figure] 10 of Petrovic, ... output signal 698 is a singular output and thus
uses a single link" to communicate. Ans. 5. Indeed, Figure 10 of
Petrovic shows a single combined composite signal 698 being output by
signal combiner 690. See also Petrovic ,r 105. Accordingly, we are not
persuaded the Examiner erred in finding Petrovic discloses
"communicat[ing] the output signal over a single link," as recited in claim 9
and similarly recited in claim 18.
Dependent Claims 10 and 19
Appellant contends the Examiner erred in finding Petrovic discloses
"combin[ing] the one or more portions based on configuration of the single
link," as recited in claim 10 and similarly recited in claim 19. App. Br. 17-
18; Reply Br. 12-13. Specifically, Appellant argues, "because Petrovic
specifically teaches that the output signal 158 is formatted after all channel
stacking is done, the inclusion of input signals ( or portions thereof) in the
9
Appeal2018-002634
Application 13/906,933
output signal 158 is independent of the final formatting of the output signal
158." App. Br. 18; Reply Br. 13.
We are not persuaded. As discussed above, the Examiner finds a
single combined composite signal 698, output by signal combiner 690,
discloses the claimed "output signal" comprising portions of the processed
signals. Ans. 2 ( citing Petrovic Fig. 1 O); Final Act. 2; see Petrovic ,r,r 97,
100, 106. Because signal combiner 690 combines its input signals to output
a single signal, it follows that we also agree with the Examiner's finding that
combined composite signal 698 is "stack[ ed] ... in accordance with the
requirements of the output link," i.e., configuration of the single link.
Ans. 5.
Appellant's argument, however, addresses "output signal 158 [being]
formatted after all channel stacking is done" (App. Br. 18; Reply Br. 13)
rather than addressing combined composite signal 698 on which the
Examiner relies. Accordingly, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in
finding Petrovic discloses "combin[ing] the one or more portions based on
configuration of the single link," as recited in claim 10 and similarly recited
in claim 19.
Dependent Claims 5~ and 15-17
Although Appellant nominally argues the rejection of dependent
claims 5-8 and 15-17 separately, the arguments do not point out with
particularity or explain sufficiently why the limitations of these dependent
claims are separately patentable. Instead, Appellant merely provides a
conclusory statement that "Petrovic does not teach or disclose the
limitations" recited in the claims. App. Br. 14--15; Reply Br. 11-12. Such
10
Appeal2018-002634
Application 13/906,933
arguments are insufficient to apprise us of error in the rejection. In re Lovin,
652 F.3d 1349 (Fed. Cir. 2011). Without additional explanation, Appellant
has not presented any persuasive arguments with respect to claims 5-8 and
15-17. Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of claims 5-8 and 15-17.
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-20 under 35
U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Petrovic.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 4I.50(f).
AFFIRMED
11