Ex Parte Kim et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Mar 22, 2012

10999703 (B.P.A.I. Mar. 22, 2012)

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.
10/999,703 11/30/2004 Seong-Hwan Kim 2-3-1 2196
7590 03/22/2012
Ryan, Mason & Lewis, LLP
90 Forest Avenue
Locust Valley, NY 11560
EXAMINER
MAIS, MARK A
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2467
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/22/2012 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte SEONG-HWAN KIM, JAMES M. SEPKO,
and SUNDAR VEDANTHAM
____________

Appeal 2009-013272
Application 10/999,703
Technology Center 2400
____________

Before MAHSHID D. SAADAT, KALYAN K. DESHPANDE,
and JUSTIN T. ARBES, Administrative Patent Judges.

SAADAT, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 1-12, 14-20, and 22. Claims 13 and 21 have been
canceled. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
Appeal 2009-013272
Application 10/999,703

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants’ Invention
Appellants’ invention relates to digital networking systems for
transmitting data channels to end users using improved data channel
selection and switching techniques (See generally Spec. 2:23 – 3:11).
Claim 16 is illustrative of the invention and reads as follows:
16. A digital networking system comprising:
a data server capable of transmitting a plurality of data
channels;
at least one customer premises equipment (CPE) device
capable of transmitting one or more control messages each
corresponding to a requested data channel; and
at least one network node comprising an uplink card
configured for receiving a plurality of data channels from a data
server of the digital networking system and providing the
plurality of data channels to each of a plurality of line cards in
the network node, each of the plurality of line cards having an
integrated circuit device configured for intercepting one or
more control messages from the at least one CPE device,
receiving the plurality of data channels from the uplink card,
and providing the one or more requested data channels to the at
least one CPE device.
Rejection at Issue1
The Examiner rejected claims 6 and 16 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Mehta (US 6,763,019 B2) in view of Blanset (US
6,977,922 B2).

1 Separate patentability is not argued for claims 1-5, 7-12, 14, 15, 17-20, and
22.
Appeal 2009-013272
Application 10/999,703

3
Appellants’ Contentions
Claim 16
1. Appellants acknowledge that Blanset teaches a Digital
Subscriber Line Access Multiplexer (DSLAM) comprising an uplink
interface and a plurality of line cards, but argue that Blanset fails “to teach or
suggest the specific limitations of claim 16” with respect to the claimed
uplink card and line cards (App. Br. 7). According to Appellants (id.),
“claim 16 does not merely recite a network node comprising an uplink card
and a plurality of line cards” but actually requires that “the uplink card is
configured for receiving a plurality of data channels from a data server of the
digital network system and providing the plurality of data channels to each
of a plurality of line cards in the network node.”
2. Appellants further argue that:
[T]he proposed combination of the channel change method
taught by Mehta and the DSLAM structure taught in Blanset
would instead result in a conventional arrangement similar to
that described in the present specification at page 2, lines 5-11, in
which software controlled selective channel switching is
implemented in an uplink card such that channel switching time
is reduced by receiving at an uplink card a subset of the available
video channels.
(App. Br. 8).
In that regard, Appellants cite portions of Mehta as follows:
See, for example, Mehta at column 8, lines 3-6 (“[C]ore
network 312 only has to supply one instance of each requested
channel instead of separate channels for each validated and
approved request.”) and at column 7, lines 33-35 (“[If] each set
top box is only requesting one of two different channels, only a
two channel throughput is required at router 202 to provide
media to the set top boxes 224”).
Appeal 2009-013272
Application 10/999,703

4
(App. Br. 9; Reply Br. 3).
Claim 6
Appellants point out that claim 6 recites “an arrangement wherein a
table that manages data channel requests of the at least one CPE device
updates dynamically in response to each intercepted control message from
the at least one CPE device” (App. Br. 11), and point to Figure 6 of their
disclosure and its corresponding text (see Spec. 8:20-27) as an illustrative
embodiment (Reply Br. 4). Appellants contend that the authentication
database of Mehta is not updated in response to a channel request; rather, a
lookup is performed in response to each request (App. Br. 11-12; Reply Br.
5). Appellants further assert that column 9, lines 17-37, of Mehta describe
updating this database only when a subscription change occurs (App. Br.
12).
Appellants conclude that because the table disclosed in Mehta is not
updated in response to each request for a data channel and Blanset fails to
supplement this deficiency, claim 6 is patentable over the proposed
combination of the references (id.). Citing column 9, lines 45-53 and 63-65,
of Mehta, Appellants compare steps 502 and 504 of Figure 5, showing an
authentication module receiving a channel request and looking up a
consumer subscription in a subscriber database, with step 510 where “the
authentication module asynchronously receives subscriber database updates”
(App. Br. 12).

Appeal 2009-013272
Application 10/999,703

5
Issues on Appeal
Did the Examiner err in rejecting claims 6 and 16 as being obvious
because the combination of Mehta and Blanset fails to teach or suggest the
argued features?

ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellants’
arguments that the Examiner has erred. We disagree with Appellants’
conclusions. We adopt as our own (1) the findings and reasons set forth by
the Examiner in the action from which this appeal is taken and (2) the
reasons set forth by the Examiner in the Examiner’s Answer in response to
Appellants’ Appeal Brief. We concur with the conclusions reached by the
Examiner.
Claim 16
Regarding above contention 1, it appears to us that Appellants take the
Examiner’s proposed combination as using the uplink interface and a
plurality of line cards of Blanset in the system described in Mehta, while the
functionality of Mehta with respect to line switching is followed. The
Examiner provides a comprehensive response to Appellants’ arguments by
mapping the DSLAM of Mehta and Blanset to the corresponding claimed
elements (Ans. 14). The Examiner explains (id.) that the DSLAM used for
channel changing in Mehta is modified to include the uplink interface and
line cards from the DSLAM of Blanset, where some of the management
software controlling the uplink interface and line cards may be implemented
with an application specific integrated circuit (ASIC). We agree with the
Examiner’s analysis.
Appeal 2009-013272
Application 10/999,703

6
We further note that Blanset’s Figure 3 shows that the backplane
interface 60 in DSLAM 44 provides the requested data, which is received at
DSLAM by uplink interface 56, to a plurality of DSL ports 64 in each line
card 62 for delivery to the subscribers (see col. 7, ll. 25-58). Additionally,
Blanset discloses that the memory 88 of the DSLAM comprises
management software 100, which includes an uplink interface module 130
and a line card data module 138 (see Fig. 7; col. 10, ll. 43-57) for managing
data channels based on the information received from the user interface 92
(see col. 8, ll. 50-58). The management software 100, which controls the
line cards 62 through the line card data module 138, is specified to be
implemented with any or a combination of different technologies, including
integrated circuits such as an ASIC (col. 10, ll. 16-29). Therefore, the
DSLAM of Blanset includes the components and functionalities of the
network node recited in claim 16.
Regarding above contention 2, we find the Examiner’s findings and
conclusions, as discussed above, to be reasonable and based on the evidence
of record. We specifically note that Appellants’ challenge to the references
individually is not convincing of error in the Examiner’s position because all
of the features of the secondary reference need not be bodily incorporated
into the primary reference, but consideration should be given to what the
combined teachings, knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the art, and the
nature of the problem to be solved as a whole would have suggested to those
of ordinary skill in the art (see In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA
1981)). Furthermore, the artisan is not compelled to blindly follow the
teaching of one prior art reference over the other without the exercise of
independent judgment (see Lear Siegler, Inc. v. Aeroquip Corp., 733 F.2d
Appeal 2009-013272
Application 10/999,703

7
881, 889 (Fed. Cir. 1984)). As such, Appellants’ reliance on the disclosure
of Mehta in columns 7 and 8 (App. Br. 9; Reply Br. 3) fails to take into
account that modifying Mehta with the DSLAM network arrangement of
Blanset allows the uplink card and a plurality of line cards included in the
network node of Blanset to control the data channels of Mehta that are
provided to each CPE device as the subscriber requests are received.2
Claim 6
We find Appellants’ arguments with respect to claim 6 to be
unpersuasive, as they are not commensurate with the scope of the claim. It
is our opinion that Appellants’ arguments improperly attempt to narrow the
scope of the claim by implicitly adding disclosed limitations which have no
basis in the claim. See In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054-55 (Fed. Cir.
1997). Appellants’ reference to the description of their Figure 6, wherein “a
table relating to requested data channels … is dynamically updated” (Spec.
8:22-23), merely requires that the table be related to the requested data
channels, even if the table includes less than all the requests or is indirectly
related to those requests. We find nothing in the recitation of “a table that
manages data channel requests” in claim 6 to preclude a table that is updated
when a subscription change occurs, such as the one disclosed in Mehta,
where subscriber Internet Group Management Protocol (IGMP) requests are
authenticated and updated in a database stored on the DSLAM (Mehta, col.
8, ll. 49-59; col. 10, ll. 1-12).

2 We observe that Appellants have taken the Examiner’s use of the term
“necessarily” (see Ans. 15) as relying on the principle of inherency (Reply
Br. 2). However, the Examiner’s stated position shows that the term was
used to indicate what is actually present in the Blanset system by virtue of
providing data channels to the ports in line cards 62 (see col. 7, ll. 25-58).
Appeal 2009-013272
Application 10/999,703

8
We also find unpersuasive Appellants’ contention (App. Br. 12)
which directs attention to the portion of Mehta (see col. 9, lines 45-53 and
63-65) describing “the authentication module asynchronously receives
subscriber database updates,” relied on by the Examiner as updating a table
that manages data channel requests. Similar to our discussion above, claim
6 includes no recitation that delimits the claimed invention only to
“synchronously” updating the table.

CONCLUSIONS
1. The Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 6 and 16 as being
unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
2. Claims 1-12, 14-20, and 22 are not patentable.

DECISION
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-12, 14-20, and 22 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).

AFFIRMED

msc