Ex Parte Kliger et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Aug 20, 2012

09943424 (B.P.A.I. Aug. 20, 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.
09/943,424 08/30/2001 Avi Kliger TIA-001 7853
72822 7590 08/20/2012
Weiss & Arons, LLP
1540 Route 202, Suite 8
Pomona, NY 10970
EXAMINER
DECKER, CASSANDRA L
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2466
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/20/2012 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 AVI KLIGER, RAMI KOPELMAN,
NACHUM AVISHAY, ALON SHTERN, and
AMIR WASSERMANN
____________

Appeal 2010-006510
Application 09/943,424
Technology Center 2400
____________

Before JOSEPH L. DIXON, JEAN R. HOMERE, and
GREGORY J. GONSALVES, Administrative Patent Judges.

DIXON, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2010-006510
Application 09/943,424

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a rejection of claims
71, 73-82, 84-89, 96, and 98-106. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. §
6(b).
We affirm.
The claims are directed to home network communication. Claim 71,
reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
71. In a home network having a plurality of network
modules, one of said plurality of network modules being a
network master module, each of said plurality of network
modules being connected to a coax backbone, a method for
communicating over the coax backbone between the plurality of
network modules, the method comprising:

establishing direct communication between each of the
plurality of network modules over the coax backbone;

establishing direct communication between the plurality
of the network modules and a demarcation point unit, said
plurality of network modules being coupled to the demarcation
point unit via the coax backbone, said demarcation point unit
providing an interface between the home network and an
external network, said demarcation point unit being separate
from the master module;

using the master module to receive requests sent over the
coax backbone from the plurality of network modules for
bandwidth to transmit bursts;

establishing an order of transmission opportunities for the
plurality of network modules to follow when transmitting bursts
directly to other network modules via the coax backbone; and

using the master module to transmit an allocation burst
over the coax backbone that allocates a transmission
Appeal 2010-006510
Application 09/943,424

3
opportunity to each of the plurality of network modules to
transmit bursts directly to other network modules via the coax
backbone, said transmission opportunity that depends at least in
part on the amount of data ready for transmission in a selected
transmission cycle, said allocation burst being based on said
transmission order.

REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Jain

Petler

Bell

Silverman
US 4,608,685

US 6,081,519

US 6,229,818 B1

US 6,307,862 B1
Aug. 26, 1986

June 27, 2000

May 8, 2001
(filed July 7, 1997)

Oct. 23, 2001
(filed Mar. 23, 1998)
Appeal 2010-006510
Application 09/943,424

4
REJECTIONS12
Claims 71, 73-76, 78-82, 84-86, 88, 89, 96, 98-101, and 103-106
stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Petler,
Silverman, and Bell.
Claims 77, 87, and 102 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Petler, Silverman, Bell, and Jain.

ANALYSIS
Appellants contend that Petler cannot be combined with Silverman
because: (1) Petler teaches away from an in-home coaxial network (App.
Br. 7-8); (2) Silverman’s in-home LAN prevents signals from leaving the
home while Petler’s network requires sending signals outside of the home
(App. Br. 8); and (3) Silverman’s LAN requires reserved bandwidth for the
exclusive use of LAN traffic, while Petler’s network uses bandwidth for

1 The Examiner has withdrawn the cumulative rejection of independent
claims 71, 82, and 96 over Bushmitch, Silverman, and Bell (Ans. 3). The
Examiner has not explicitly withdrawn the rejection of dependent claims 73-
76, 78-81, 84-86, 88, 89, 98-101, and 103-106 over Bushmitch, Silverman,
and Bell, and dependent claims 77, 87, and 102 over Bushmitch, Silverman,
Bell, and Jain. However, we assume the Examiner intended to withdraw the
dependent claim rejections as well because the withdrawn rejection of
independent claims 71, 82, and 96 relied on the same base references used to
reject the dependent claims.
2 The Examiner does not repeat in the Answer the rejections of dependent
claims 73-76, 78-81, 84-86, 88, 89, 98-101, and 103-106 over Petler,
Silverman, and Bell and dependent claims 77, 87, and 102 over Petler,
Silverman, Bell, and Jain (see Ans. 4-11). However, we presume that these
rejections still stand because the Examiner has not explicitly withdrawn
them and the Examiner has maintained the rejection of independent claims
71, 82, and 96 over the same base references used to reject the dependent
claims.
Appeal 2010-006510
Application 09/943,424

5
multiple addresses, not bandwidth allocated exclusively for a single location
on the network (App. Br. 8-9). Appellants further contend that Bell cannot
be combined with Silverman because Bell uses a shared medium while
Silverman uses exclusive bandwidth for LAN communications (App. Br. 9-
10). We disagree.
First, Petler does not teach away from an in-home coaxial network.
The quotation Appellants rely on for their argument (see App. Br. 7-8) —
“the in-home coaxial network is not well suited for sending signals directly
from one device to another” (Petler, col. 2, ll. 37-39) — is taken out of
context. The first half of the sentence that Appellants quote states that “One
advantage of the present invention is that the devices in the home can utilize
the subscriber coaxial cable network for in-home communications, in spite
of the fact that . . . .” (Petler, col. 2, ll. 35-37). Thus, although coaxial cable
networks are not well suited for direct communications from one device in
the home to another, Petler’s invention nevertheless establishes an in-home
coaxial network. To the extent that Appellants argue that Petler’s in-home
coaxial network teaches away from direct communication between home
devices (see App. Br. 7-8), the Examiner relies on Bell for this feature (see
Ans. 6), and Appellants make no arguments that Petler and Bell are not
properly combined (see App. Br. 6-10).
Second, Appellants’ argument that Silverman’s LAN prevents signals
from leaving the home, while Petler’s network requires sending signals
outside the home (App. Br. 8), is not persuasive. Petler discloses routing
communications from one home device to another through BNU (Broadband
Network Unit) 110, which according to Petler’s Figure 1 is outside of home
250 (see Petler, col. 3, ll. 19-27; col. 5, l. 65-col. 6, l. 7; Fig. 1). However,
Appeal 2010-006510
Application 09/943,424

6
Appellants do not sufficiently explain why the fact that Petler’s BNU
physically resides outside the home renders Petler incompatible with
Silverman when the practical result of Petler’s invention is an “in-home
communication system” (Petler, Abstract) (emphasis added). That is,
Petler’s BNU 110 routes signals from a home device back into the home
when they are destined for another home device without forwarding these in-
home communications to the external cable network (see Ans. 13; Petler,
col. 5, l. 65-col. 6, l. 7; col. 7, ll. 20-30; col. 9, ll. 11-24).
Finally, Appellants’ argument that Silverman discloses a reserved
bandwidth network, while Petler discloses a shared bandwidth network for
addressable communications (App. Br. 8), is also not persuasive. We agree
with the Examiner for the reasons discussed in the Answer (Ans. 13-14) and
find that both Petler and Silverman disclose shared bandwidth networks.
Specifically, the devices on Silverman’s LAN must share the LAN medium
to communicate with each other similarly to how devices on Petler’s
in-home coaxial network share access to the network for in-home
communications—through time-based access (see Id.). Appellants’
argument that Bell cannot be combined with Silverman is similarly not
persuasive because we agree with the Examiner and find that both Bell and
Silverman disclose shared bandwidth networks (Ans. 14).
We are therefore not persuaded that the Examiner erred in rejecting
independent claims 71, 82, and 96, which are argued together (see App. Br.
6), and dependent claims 73-81, 84-89, and 98-106 not separately argued
from the independent claims.

Appeal 2010-006510
Application 09/943,424

7
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
The Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 71, 73-82, 84-89, 96, and
98-106 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).

DECISION
For the above reasons, we affirm the rejections of claims 71, 73-82,
84-89, 96, and 98-106.
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). See 37
C.F.R. § 41.50(f).

AFFIRMED

peb