Ex Parte DENT

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 21, 2016

12034283 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 21, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/034,283 02/20/2008
27045 7590
ERICSSON INC.
6300 LEGACY DRIVE
MIS EVR 1-C-11
PLANO, TX 75024
06/23/2016
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Paul W. DENT
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.
P23905-US2 7861
EXAMINER
HUGHES, EBONI N
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2634
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/23/2016 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):
kara.coffman@ericsson.com
kathryn.lopez@ericsson.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte PAUL W. DENT
Appeal2015-002231
Application 12/034,283
Technology Center 2600
Before ERIC S. FRAHM, BARBARA A. PARVIS, and
JEFFREY A. STEPHENS, Administrative Patent Judges.
PARVIS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's final
rejection of claims 1-12 and 14--30. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b ). We REVERSE.
Appeal2015-002231
Application 12/034,283
Claimed Subject Matter
Appellant's invention relates to satellite and terrestrial spatial
diversity transmissions on a same frequency by using timing and
synchronization arrangements. Spec. ,-r 2.
Claim 1 is illustrative and is reproduced below:
1. A digital wireless broadcast system, comprising:
a plurality of ground stations respectively configured to
wirelessly transmit a digital symbol stream over a frequency
spectrum to corresponding plurality of service areas; and
a satellite configured to wirelessly transmit the digital
symbol stream over the frequency spectrum to the plurality of
service areas,
wherein the plurality of ground stations are configured
such that the digital symbol stream from each ground station
and the digital symbol stream from the satellite arrive within a
predetermined time period of each other in each corresponding
service area,
wherein the predetermined time period is a relative delay
between the digital symbol stream from the satellite and from
the ground station that is within a range for which a receiver in
the corresponding service area is capable of decoding the digital
symbol stream, and
wherein the plurality of ground stations are configured
such that a timing of the digital symbol stream transmission
from at least one ground station is independently controllable
from a timing of the digital symbol stream transmission from at
least one other ground station.
The Rejections on Appeal
Claims 1, 3-10, 12, 14--16, 18-25, 27, 29, and 30 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Tawil et al. (US 5,761,605,
2
Appeal2015-002231
Application 12/034,283
issued June 2, 1998) and Campanella (WO 01/65749 Al, publication Sept.
7, 2001). Final Act. 5-15.
Claim 11 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable
over Tawil, Campanella, and Tawil II (AU2002 l 0094 B2, publication Mar.
7, 2002). Final Act. 15-16.
Claims 2, 17, 26, and 28 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over Tawil, Campanella, and Da (US 6,636,744 Bl,
issued Oct. 21, 2003).
Issues
1. Did the Examiner err in finding that the combination of Tawil
and Campanella teaches or suggests "a plurality of ground stations
respectively configured to wirelessly transmit a digital symbol stream over a
frequency spectrum to corresponding plurality of service areas," and "a
satellite configured to wirelessly transmit the digital symbol stream over the
frequency spectrum to the plurality of service areas," as recited in
independent claim 1, and commensurately recited in independent claim 16?
2. Did the Examiner err in finding that the combination of Tawil
and Campanella teaches or suggests "a first satellite configured to transmit a
digital symbol stream over first a frequency spectrum to a first service area,"
and "a second satellite configured to transmit the digital symbol stream over
the first frequency spectrum to the first service area," as recited in
independent claim 14, and commensurately recited in independent claims
15, 25, and 30?
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner's rejections in light of Appellant's
contentions in the Appeal Brief presented in response to the Final Office
3
Appeal2015-002231
Application 12/034,283
Action. We agree with Appellant's conclusion. We highlight and address
specific findings and arguments for emphasis as follows.
Claims 1 and 16
We agree with Appellant's arguments that, contrary to the Examiner's
findings (Ans. 3 (citing Tawil 1:11-14, 2:27-30, 3:19-22)), Tawil does not
teach or suggest ground stations and a satellite transmitting the same digital
symbol stream over the same service areas. Br. 27. As Appellant
acknowledges (id.), Tawil teaches terrestrially transmitted signals
simultaneously with satellite transmitted signals at the same frequency.
Tawil, 2: 12-15. We agree with Appellant (Br. 33) that Tawil is silent as to
whether the transmission is the same digital symbol stream over the same
service areas. The Examiner's citation to Tawil's background regarding
transmission of television signals via satellites in geosynchronous orbit
(Ans. 3 (citing Tawil, 1: 11-12)) does not remedy this deficiency because we
interpret the plurality of ground stations to be configured to transmit the
digital symbol stream directly to a plurality of service areas such that the
transmissions by the ground stations are independent of the satellite's
transmission to the same plurality of service areas.
Additionally, the Examiner's citation to Campanella's teachings
relating to a time diversity communication system that transmits early and
late satellite signals over satellite 14 (Ans. 4 (citing Campanella 5-7, 15,
Fig. la)) does not remedy this deficiency. In the portions cited by the
Examiner, Campanella teaches "as shown in Fig. 1 a, a time diversity only
satellite communication system 10 can transmit early and late versions of the
same signal in a single direct LOS data stream 12 over the satellite 14 (i.e.,
the late signal is a replica of the early signal but delayed by a selected time
4
Appeal2015-002231
Application 12/034,283
interval)." Campanella, 6. Campanella additionally teaches that the non-
delayed signals is delayed at receiver 22 so that it can be combined with the
late signal. Id. at 7, 15. Based on these recitations, the Examiner finds that
Campanella "teaches diversity reception at the satellite stations to adjust for
time of arrival of two TDM signals over the same TDM stream (i.e., early
and late broadcast channels) to terrestrial stations within a respective
terrestrial coverage region (i.e. service area)." Ans. 4. The Examiner does
not direct us to where Campanella teaches or suggests a plurality of ground
stations respectively configured to wirelessly transmit the same digital
symbol stream as transmitted by the satellite over the same frequency
spectrum to the same service areas.
For these reasons, we are persuaded by Appellant's arguments that the
Examiner erred in finding that the combination of Tawil and Campanella
teaches or suggests "a plurality of ground stations respectively configured to
wirelessly transmit a digital symbol stream over a frequency spectrum to
corresponding plurality of service areas," and "a satellite configured to
wirelessly transmit the digital symbol stream over the frequency spectrum to
the plurality of service areas," as recited in independent claim 1, and
commensurately recited in independent claim 16.
Claims 14, 15, 25, and 30
We agree with Appellant's arguments that, contrary to the Examiner's
findings (Ans. 8-9 (citing Tawil 1:11-14, 2:27-30, 3:19-22)), Tawil does
not teach or suggest first and second satellites transmitting the same digital
symbol stream over the same first frequency spectrum. Br. 40. For instance,
we agree with Appellant that Tawil teaches Direct Broadcast Satellite
Service (DBS) satellites transmitting different signals in the same frequency
5
Appeal2015-002231
Application 12/034,283
band. Tawil, 3:44--45. We further agree with Appellant (Br. 42) that
Tawil's teachings regarding terrestrial transmission of signals, as applied by
the Examiner (Ans. 8-9), do not relate to transmission by first and second
satellites because we interpret claim 14 to require the first and second
satellites to be configured to transmit the digital symbol stream over
independent satellite paths that do not involve intermediate terrestrial
transmission. Additionally, the Examiner's citation to Campanella's
teachings relating to transmitting early and late satellite signals over one
satellite, i.e., satellite 14 (Ans. 4 (citing Campanella 5-7, 15, Fig. la)) does
not remedy this deficiency.
For these reasons, we are persuaded by Appellant's arguments that the
Examiner erred in finding that the combination of Tawil and Campanella
teaches or suggests "a first satellite configured to transmit a digital symbol
stream over first a frequency spectrum to a first service area," and "a second
satellite configured to transmit the digital symbol stream over the first
frequency spectrum to the first service area," as recited in independent claim
14, and commensurately recited in independent claims 15, 25, and 30.
Conclusion
For the reasons above, we are constrained to reverse the rejection of
claims 1, 14--16, 25, and 30 under 35 U.S.C. § 103. Because each of
dependent claims 2-12, 17-24, and 26-29 depend, directly or indirectly,
from independent claim 1 or 16 and, as applied by the Examiner, Tawil II
and Da do not remedy the deficiencies of Tawil and Campanella, we also
reverse the rejection of claims 2-12, 17-24, and 26-29 under 35
U.S.C. § 103.
6
Appeal2015-002231
Application 12/034,283
DECISION
The decision of the Examiner is REVERSED.
REVERSED
7