Ex Parte Ling et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 29, 2017

13687676 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 29, 2017)

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.
13/687,676 11/28/2012 Curtis Ling 25040US02 1836
23446 7590 03/31/2017
MCANDREWS HELD & MALLOY, LTD
500 WEST MADISON STREET
SUITE 3400
CHICAGO, IL 60661
EXAMINER
TILAHUN, ALAZAR
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2424
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/31/2017 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 CURTIS LING, TIMOTHY GALLAGHER,
and GLENN CHANG
Appeal 2016-006907
Application 13/687,676
Technology Center 2400
Before JASON V. MORGAN, ERIC B. CHEN, and
KARA L. SZPONDOWSKI, Administrative Patent Judges.
CHEN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the final rejection of
claims 1—20, all the claims pending in the application. We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We reverse.
Appeal 2016-006907
Application 13/687,676
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants’ invention relates to an Internet protocol low noise block
downconverter (IP LNB) assembly within a satellite dish assembly, and
operable to determine baseline settings of the satellite dish assembly.
(Abstract.)
Claim 1 is exemplary, with disputed limitations in italics:
1. A method, comprising:
in an Internet protocol low noise block downconverter (IP
LNB) assembly that is within a satellite dish assembly:
determining one or more baseline settings of said satellite dish
assembly;
monitoring, periodically or aperiodically, one or more current
settings that correspond to said determined one or more baseline
settings to identify deviations of said one or more current settings
from said baseline settings; and
communicating, from said IP LNB assembly to a satellite
service provider via a communication network that is separate from a
satellite network used by said satellite dish assembly, results of said
monitoring, wherein said satellite service provider provides
maintenance and/or service management for said satellite dish
assembly based on said communicated results.
Claims 1, 2, and 5—20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Margis (US 2009/0081947 Al; Mar. 26, 2009), Kahn (US
8,095,466 B2; Jan.10, 2012), and Petruzzelli (US 8,108,900 B2; Jan. 31,
2012).
Claim 3 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Margis, Kahn, Petruzzelli, and Gayrard (US 2011/0267229 Al; Nov. 3,
2011).
2
Appeal 2016-006907
Application 13/687,676
Claim 4 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Margis, Kahn, Petruzzelli, and Kaplan (US 7,911,400 B2; Mar. 22, 2011).
ANALYSIS
§103 Rejection—Margis, Kahn, and Petruzzelli
We are persuaded by Appellants’ arguments (App. Br. 10; see also
Reply Br. 7) that the Examiner’s findings do not show that the combination
of Margis, Kahn, and Petruzzelli would have rendered obvious independent
claim 1, which includes the limitation “communicating, from said IP LNB
assembly to a satellite service provider via a communication network that is
separate from a satellite network used by said satellite dish assembly, results
of said monitoring.”
The Examiner found that the network operations center (NOC) of
Margis, which monitors operations for vehicle information systems,
corresponds to the limitation “communicating, from said IP LNB assembly
to a satellite service provider . . . results of said monitoring.” (Ans. 3.) The
Examiner further found that the content delivery network (CDN) of Kahn
corresponds to the limitation “a communication network that is separate
from a satellite network used by said satellite dish assembly.” (Final Act. 6.)
The Examiner concluded that
it would have been obvious ... to have modified the satellite base
communication system ... of Margis with the teaching of Kahn
in order programs/information from the media source 103 may
also be transmitted from the HE 102 to the IRDs 106 via a content
delivery network (CDN) 110.
(Final Act. 6—7; see also Ans. 4—5.) We do not agree.
Margis relates to vehicle information systems, in particular, “to
aircraft in-flight entertainment systems suitable for receiving and selectably
3
Appeal 2016-006907
Application 13/687,676
presenting viewing content broadcast from a terrestrial content source.”
(| 2.) Figure 2B of Margis illustrates vehicle information system 300 for
aircraft 390B, including terrestrial content source 310B and a satellite
communication system 370A, such that “vehicle information system 300 and
the terrestrial content source 310B, for example, can communicate in any
conventional wireless manner, including directly and/or indirectly via an
intermediate communication system 370, such as a satellite communication
system 370A.” (| 33.) Figure 5 of Margis illustrates vehicle information
system 300 in aircraft 390B with content system 400, such that “vehicle
information system 300 and the content system 400 communicate via the
satellite communication system 370A.” (| 54.) Margis explains that content
system 400 includes network operations center (NOC) 440, in which “[t]he
network operations center 440 advantageously centralizes monitoring and
operations of the vehicle information system 300” such that “the vehicle
information system elements of the vehicle information system 300 can be
readily reconfigured in response to failures, outages, performance
bottlenecks, loading balance objectives, and other network control
requirements.” (1 56.)
Kahn relates to pay delivery systems that “conditionally authorize
content delivery at content servers in pay delivery systems” (col. 1,11. 8—11),
for example, downloading of video, audio and/or multimedia (col. 1,11. 19—
21). Figure 1 of Kahn illustrates direct-to-home (DTH) system 100, which
includes headend (HE) 102, media sources 103, satellite/relay 104,
integrated receiver/decoders (IRDs) 106 (col. 3,11. 18—25), and content
delivery network (CDN) 110 (col. 4,11. 4—7). Kahn explains that “programs/
information from the media source 103 may also be transmitted from the
4
Appeal 2016-006907
Application 13/687,676
HE 102 to the IRDs 106 via a content delivery network (CDN) 110” and
“the CDN 110 receives programs/information (e.g., an asset file containing a
movie) from the HE 102 and makes the programs/information available for
download to the IRDs 106 via a terrestrial communication link and/or
network.” (Col. 4,11. 4—8.) Figure 1 illustrates that CDN 110 is separate
from HE 102.
Although the Examiner cited to CDN 110 of Kahn, which is separate
from HE 102, as illustrated in Figure 1, the Examiner has provided
insufficient evidence to support a finding that such CDN 110 is capable of
performing the functionality of “communicating, from said IP LNB
assembly to a satellite service provider . . . results of said monitoring.” In
particular, Kahn explains that CDN 110 “receives programs/information
(e.g., an asset file containing a movie) from the HE 102 and makes the
programs/information available for download to the IRDs 106” (col. 4,11. 5—
7), rather than monitor satellite/relay 104. Moreover, Margis explains that
content system 400 includes network operations center 440, such that “[t]he
network operations center 440 advantageously centralizes monitoring and
operations of the vehicle information system 300.” (| 56.)
Thus, the Examiner has not provided sufficient articulated reasoning
with some rational underpinning as to why one of ordinary skill in the art
would remove the monitoring functionality of satellite communication
system 370A from network operations center (NOC) 440, when Margis
explains that centralization is advantageous, and impart such monitoring
functionality to content delivery network (CDN) 110 of Kahn, when
CDN 110 of Kahn serves the purpose of transferring programs from
5
Appeal 2016-006907
Application 13/687,676
headend 102 to integrated receiver/decoders (IRD) 106. In addition,
Petrazzelli does not cure the above noted deficiencies of Margis and Kahn.
Accordingly, we are persuaded by Appellants’ argument that
Margis clearly teaches at | 0056 centralized monitoring that is
performed by the satellite network operator (i.e., the “satellite
service provider”), with the satellite network operator then
providing results of the monitoring to the users (including the
vehicle information system 300, which the Examiner equates
with the system comprising the (IP LNB) assembly). In other
words, Margis specifically teaches an opposite approach with
respect to the monitoring of settings and communication of
information relating to that monitoring, as compared to the
current claims.
(App. Br. 10; see also Reply Br. 7.)
Therefore, we do not sustain the rejection of independent claim 1
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). Claims 2 and 5—11 depend from independent
claim 1. We do not sustain the rejection of claims 2 and 5—11 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) for the same reasons discussed with respect to
independent claim 1.
Independent claims 12 and 20 recite limitations similar to those
discussed with respect to independent claim 1. We do not sustain the
rejection of claims 12 and 20, as well as dependent claims 13—19 for the
same reasons discussed with respect to claim 1.
§103 Rejection—Margis, Kahn, Petruzzelli, and Gayrard
Claim 3 depends from independent claim 1. Gayrard was cited by the
Examiner for teaching the additional features of claim 3. (Final Act. 15—16.)
However, the Examiner’s application of Gayrard does not cure the above
noted deficiencies of Margis, Kahn, and Petruzzelli.
6
Appeal 2016-006907
Application 13/687,676
§103 Rejection—Margis, Kahn, and Petruzzelli, and Kaplan
Claim 4 depends from independent claim 1. Kaplan was cited by the
Examiner for teaching the additional features of claim 4. (Final Act. 16—17.)
However, the Examiner’s application of Kaplan does not cure the above
noted deficiencies of Margis, Kahn, and Petruzzelli.
DECISION
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1—20 is reversed.
REVERSED
7