Ex Parte Miller

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 28, 2018

14152547 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 28, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
14/152,547 01/10/2014 Mark J. Miller
16565 7590 03/02/2018
Holland & Hart LLP (ViaSat)
P.O. Box 11583
Salt Lake City, UT 84147
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.
P049.01.0l (78120.0186) 9063
EXAMINER
SCHWARTZ, JOSHUA L
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2642
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/02/2018 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):
patentdocket@hollandhart.com
sesoares@hollandhart.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte MARK J. MILLER1
Appeal2017-001077
Application 14/152,547
Technology Center 2600
Before THU A. DANG, JOHNNY A. KUMAR, and
JOHN P. PINKERTON, Administrative Patent Judges.
DANG, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
1 Appellant identifies ViaSat, Inc. as the real party in interest. App. Br. 2
Appeal2017-001077
Application 14/152,547
I. STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
Final Rejection of claims 1-3, 5-21, which constitute all the claims pending
in this application. Claim 4 has been canceled. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.
A. INVENTION
According to Appellant, the invention relates to "[t]echniques for
providing broadcast services on a spot beam satellite," in which a spot beam
satellite system is "changed from providing spot beam transmission to
broadcast transmission, and vice versa" (Spec. [007]).
B. ILLUSTRATIVE CLAIM
Claim 1 is exemplary and is reproduced below:
1. A satellite system, comprising:
a spot beam satellite operable in a first mode to provide broadcast data to a
broadcast coverage area via a plurality of spot beams and operable in a
second mode to provide spot beam transmissions via the plurality of spot
beams to a plurality of spot beam coverage areas, wherein the spot beam
satellite transmits using a first frequency to first and second spot beams of
the plurality of spot beams;
a first hub configured to transmit first signals associated with the first spot
beam to the spot beam satellite; and
a second hub configured to transmit second signals associated with the
second snot beam to the snot beam satellite, wherein the second hub is
located in a different physical location than the first hub,
wherein, when the spot beam satellite is operating in the first mode,
the first and second signals comprise space-time coded signals of a same
2
Appeal2017-001077
Application 14/152,547
input broadcast data, and wherein timing of the first and second signals are
pre-corrected to be symbol-synchronized when received at the spot beam
satellite, and wherein when the spot beam satellite is operating in the second
mode,_ the first and second signals comprise different data.
C. REJECTIONS
Claims 1-3, 5-9, 13-17, and 21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Norin et al. (EP 091080Al; published
Apr. 21, 1999), Kiesling (US 2007/0082609 Al; published Apr. 12, 2007),
and Eroz et al. (US 2007 /0022352 Al; published Jan. 25, 2007).
Claims 10-12, and 18-20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Norin, Kiesling, Eroz, and Krebs et al. (US
2003/0054816 Al; published Jan. 25, 2007).
II. ISSUES
The dispositive issues before us are whether the Examiner erred in
finding the combination of Norin, Kiesling, and Eroz teaches or suggests ( 1)
"when the spot beam satellite is operating in the first mode" to "provide
broadcast data," the first and second signals transmitted from the spot beam
satellite "comprise space-time coded signals of a same input broadcast
data," and (2) "timing of the first and second signals are pre-corrected to be
symbol-synchronized when received at the spot beam satellite" (claim 1,
emphasis added).
3
Appeal2017-001077
Application 14/152,547
III. ANALYSIS
With respect to independent claims 1 and 14, Appellant contends that,
although the Examiner relies on Kielsing for teaching and suggesting "the
first and second signals comprise space-time coded signals of a same input
broadcast data," such "diffusion" according to Kiesling "does not refer to
space-time coding of a same input single for multiple beams" (App. Br. 5).
Instead, Appellant argues "'diffusion,' according to Kiesling refers to
'provid[ing] alternative spot-beams which can carry a [Designated Market
Area (DMA)]"' (id.). Further, according to Appellant, "Eroz simply does
not describe, teach or suggest use of space time codes for a satellite system"
(Reply Br. 4).
Similarly, although the Examiner relies on Eroz for teaching and
suggesting "timing of the first and second signals are pre-corrected to be
symbol-synchronized when received at the spot beam satellite," Appellant
contends the Forward Error Correction (FEC) of Eroz "does not refer to
techniques for pre-correcting the timing of signals transmitted by different
hubs to be symbol-synchronized when received at a satellite" (App. Br. 7).
Instead, Appellant argues "FEC as discussed in Eroz relates to a receiver
performing error correction to recover the input data from the coded
information stream" (id.).
We have considered all of Appellant's arguments and evidence
presented. We agree with Appellant that the preponderance of evidence on
this record fails to support the Examiner's finding that Appellant's claims 1
and 14 as set forth before us in this Appeal would have been obvious over
Norin, Kiesling and Eroz.
4
Appeal2017-001077
Application 14/152,547
Although the Examiner "also relies on the Eroz reference for
disclosing that it was known in the art to use space time coding with satellite
transmissions" (Ans. 3), we agree with Appellant that Eroz simply does not
describe, teach or suggest use of space time codes for a satellite system"
(Reply Br. 4, emphasis added). Here, we cannot find any teaching or
suggestion in the cited sections of Eroz of transmitting signals from a spot
beam satellite which "comprise space-time coded signals of a same input
broadcast data" when in a broadcast mode (claim 1, emphasis added). That
is, the Examiner does not provide a clear mapping to any portion in Kiesling
or Eroz that teaches or suggests a "broadcast" mode, or "space-time coded"
signals of the "same input broadcast data" being transmitted when in such
broadcast mode, as required by claims 1 and 14 (See Final Act. 4-5, Ans.
3---4).
Similarly, although the Examiner finds "Forward Error Correction
(' FEC ') [as set forth in Eroz] is a type of pre-correcting for symbol
synchronization" (Ans. 4), we agree with Appellant that "FEC as discussed
in Eroz relates to a receiver performing error correction to recover the input
data from the coded information stream" (App. Br. 7). Here, we cannot find
any teaching or suggestion in the cited sections of pre-correcting or symbol
synchronizing of the timing of signals when received at a spot beam satellite
(claim 1, emphasis added). That is, the Examiner does not provide a clear
mapping to any portion Eroz that teaches or suggests a "broadcast" mode, or
signals being "pre-corrected to be symbol-synchronized" when "received at
the spot beam satellite" in such broadcast mode, as required by claims 1 and
14. (See Final Act. 5, Ans. 4-5).
5
Appeal2017-001077
Application 14/152,547
Because the Examiner has not fully developed the record to establish
how the combination of Kiesling and Eroz, when combined with Norin,
teaches or suggests the disputed limitations, we would be required to
speculate regarding how the Examiner applied the teachings of the
references to affirm the Examiner on this record. We decline to engage in
speculation. "A rejection ... must rest on a factual basis ... . "In re Warner,
379 F.2d 1011, 1017 (CCPA 1967). "The Patent Office has the initial duty
of supplying the factual basis for its rejection. It may not. .. resort to
speculation, unfounded assumptions or hindsight reconstruction to supply
deficiencies in its factual basis." Id.
Therefore, on this record, we find a preponderance of the evidence
supports Appellant's contentions (App. Br. 5-9) that the Examiner has not
identified a teaching or suggestion of the disputed limitations of claims 1
and 14. We are of the view that the Examiner has not fully developed the
record to show unpatentability of claims 1 and 14 pursuant to 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a). Therefore, we are constrained to reverse the Examiner's rejection
of independent claims 1and14, and claim 2, 3, 5-9, 13, 15-17, and 21,
depending respectively therefrom, over Norin, Kiesling, and Eroz. For
similar reasons, we also reverse the Examiner's rejection of claims 10-12,
and 18-20 over Norin, Kiesling, and Eroz, in further view of Krebs.
V. CONCLUSION AND DECISION
The Examiner's rejections of claims 1-3, and 5-21under35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a), are reversed.
REVERSED
6