Ex Parte Lejeune

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 6, 2014

11959676 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 6, 2014)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte STEPHANE LEJEUNE
____________________

Appeal 2011-009194
Application 11/959,676
Technology Center 2400
____________________

Before STANLEY M. WEINBERG, LARRY J. HUME, and
IRVIN E. BRANCH, Administrative Patent Judges.

BRANCH, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal 2011-009194
Application 11/959,676

2
STATEMENT OF CASE
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
Final Rejection of claims l, 2, 4–15, 17, 19, and 20. We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). Claims 3, 16, 18, and 21 are canceled.
We affirm.
Illustrative Claim
Appellant’s disclosure relates to a home network that, instead of
filtering out non-demanded digital programs of a main digital transport
stream after decryption by a conditional access (CA) device, the audio video
data of all non-demanded digital programs is removed prior to decryption, to
conserve bandwidth in the home network, while all non-audio video data
remains in the stream for use as required by the CA device. Abstract.
Claim 1, reproduced below with the disputed limitations italicized, is
illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. A home network, comprising:
an input element receiving data including digital audio-
video data and conditional access (CA) data from a source;
a tuner element receiving the data from the input element
and in response to a demanded transport stream command,
passing only data in the demanded transport stream, the data in
the demanded transport stream including CA data and data
representing at least two audio-video programs;
a first demultiplexer receiving data in the demanded
transport stream from the tuner element, the first demultiplexer
passing all of the CA data received from the tuner element and
one and only one audio-video program in the demanded
transport stream, the first demultiplexer not passing any other
audio-video program in the demanded transport stream;
a conditional access (CA) device receiving data from the
first demultiplexer and decrypting the audio-video program;
a television receiving information from the CA device
and displaying the audio-video program, and
Appeal 2011-009194
Application 11/959,676

3
a second demultiplexer interposed between the CA device
and a television display for not passing the CA data to the
television.
Rejections
The Examiner rejected claims 1–2, 4–15, 17, 19, and 20 under
35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Blatter (US 5,844,478). Ans. 3–6.

ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellant’s
arguments in the Appeal Brief (“App. Br.” filed Feb. 21, 2011) and Reply
Brief (“Reply Br.” May 9, 2011). We refer to the Briefs and the Answer
(“Ans.” mailed May 4, 2011) for the respective positions of Appellant and
the Examiner.
Appellant argues the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1 and 15
because Blatter’s element 45 (Fig. 1), cited by the Examiner as the claimed
“first multiplexer” (Ans. 4), does not meet the limitation because “the unit
45 cannot receive, much less pass, all CA data received from the tuner as
required of the first demultiplexer.” App. Br. 5; see also Reply Br. 1–2.
Appellant also argues the Examiner erred because the Examiner points to a
buffer (packet buffer 60; see Ans. 4), and not a demultiplexer, as the claimed
“second demultiplexer” and because buffer 60 does not exhibit the function
of “not passing the CA data to the television.” App. Br. 6; see also App. Br.
5–7; Reply Br. 2–3.
We are unpersuaded of error. Appellant’s arguments regarding
Blatter’s element 45 are unpersuasive because, as the Examiner finds, unit
45 “analyzes the incoming transport stream to demultiplex the stream by
identifying and separat[ing] the packets belonging to both the desired
Appeal 2011-009194
Application 11/959,676

4
program and the PSI conditional access data.” Ans. 7 (emphasis omitted)
(citing Blatter 4:51–5:6, 6:43–49, and 7:1–7). Appellant agrees Blatter
plainly teaches “the element 45 receiv[ing] from the MUX 37 only packets
of the single program selected for viewing.” App. Br. 5. Accordingly, the
unit 45 receives and passes “all of the CA data [it receives from the tuner]
and one and only one audio-video program,” which meets the limitation of
the first demultiplexer.
Appellant’s arguments regarding Blatter not disclosing the second
demultiplexer are unpersuasive because, as the Examiner finds, “[w]hile
Blatter does not use the exact term ‘demultiplexer,’” the units that separate
out the individual program data streams contained within the multiplexed
transport stream perform ‘demultiplexing’ and “thus clearly meet the
limitation of a demultiplexer.” Ans. 8–9 (citing Blatter 4:30–39, 54–56 and
4:66–56). Appellant does not present sufficient argument or evidence to
persuade us that the Examiner’s interpretation of the functions of a
demultiplexer is unreasonably broad or that the functions of the claimed
second demultiplexer are not met in accordance with the Examiner’s
findings.
Further to the “second demultiplexer” limitation, Appellant does not
dispute that Blatter describes “[p]ackets containing PSI data [being]
transmitted to internal memory of controller 115” as the Examiner finds
(Ans. 9 (citing Blatter 6:43–49)), but, referring to the second demultiplexer
“not passing CA data to the TV,” argues CA data going to the controller
“does not mean [the CA data] is not sent anywhere else, much less the TV as
claimed” (Reply Br. 3). We are unpersuaded of error based on Appellant’s
argument because, as the Examiner finds, the CA data does not “comprise
Appeal 2011-009194
Application 11/959,676

5
encoded video data [] intended for display.” Ans. 9 (emphasis added).
Accordingly, we find unavailing Appellant’s argument that “not passing CA
data to the TV,” is not met by Blatter’s disclosure that packets containing
PSI data are transmitted to internal memory of the controller.
Accordingly, on the record before us, we are unpersuaded of error in
the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1 and 15.
Appellant argues claim 7 on the basis that the Examiner improperly
relies on the rejection of claim 1 and “has not placed findings of fact on the
written record with respect to what elements in Blatter are being read on
what elements of Claim 7.” App. Br. 8. Appellant notes that
Claim 7 requires removing all audio video data of at least some
of the programs and then passing remaining audio video data
through the CA device, whereas the MUX 37 apparently sends
all programs, including the one selected for viewing from unit
45 and the ones selected for recording from unit 47, to the
relied-upon decryption block 50.

Id.
We are unpersuaded of error based on this argument. The Examiner
finds that “in the scenario when the viewer has chosen to simply watch a
television show and not record a program . . . , no programming has been
selected to be recorded, [and] unit 47 would not be providing any audio
video packets to the decryptor.” Ans. 11. We agree with the Examiner that
this meets claim 7’s “prior to passing the programs through a conditional
access (CA) device for decrypting, removing all audio video data of at least
some of the programs; then passing remaining audio video data through the
CA device.” Id. We find unavailing Appellant’s rebuttal that “the rejection
is internally inconsistent, at one point relying on PSI data for the claimed
Appeal 2011-009194
Application 11/959,676

6
CA feature and at another point relying on DES decryption for the claimed
CA feature” (Reply Br. 3) because neither claim 1 nor claim 7 generally
recites a “CA feature.” Appellant’s generalization of both the data used for
the decryption and the device that does the decrypting into “the CA feature”
does not amount to a specific argument as to either the rejection of claim 1
or of claim 7. Accordingly, on the record before us, we are unpersuaded of
error in the Examiner’s rejection of claim 7.
Appellant argues claims 8, 10, and 11 on the basis of arguments we
address supra. Accordingly, we sustain the rejections of claims 8, 10, and
11 for the reasons stated above. Appellant does not separately argue the
remaining claims. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of
claims 2, 4–6, 9, 12–14, 17, 19, and 20 on the same basis as claim 1.

DECISION
For the above reasons, the Examiner’s rejection of claims l, 2, 4–15,
17, 19, and 20 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