Ex Parte Norin

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 29, 2016

12797570 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 29, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
121797,570 06/09/2010
20991 7590 05/04/2016
THE DIRECTV GROUP, INC
PA TENT DOCKET ADMINISTRATION
CA I LAI I Al09
2230 E. IMPERIAL HIGHWAY
EL SEGUNDO, CA 90245
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
John L. Norin
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.
PD-209016 5060
EXAMINER
DUFFIELD, JEREMY S
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2427
MAILDATE DELIVERY MODE
05/04/2016 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 PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte JOHN L. NORIN
Appeal2014-007569
Application 12/797,570
Technology Center 2400
Before ELENI MANTIS MERCADER, CARL W. WHITEHEAD JR, and
ADAM J. PYONIN, Administrative Patent Judges.
MANTIS MERCADER, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal2014-007569
Application 12/797,570
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of
claims 1-11 and 13-18. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
THE INVENTION
Appellant's claimed invention is directed to "combining a satellite
broadcast system with a wireless system" (Abstract).
Independent claim 1, reproduced below, is representative of the
subject matter on appeal:
1. A system for combining a satellite broadcast system with
a wireless network, comprising:
a satellite receive antenna for receiving a satellite
broadcast signal from the satellite broadcast system; and
a wireless system device, coupled to the satellite receive
antenna, for transmitting or receiving a wireless broadband
signal to or from the wireless network, the wireless system
device comprising:
a wireless network antenna;
a wireless radio system, coupled to the wireless
network antenna,
a networking bridge, coupled to the wireless radio
system;
a coaxial networking bridge, for coupling the
satellite broadcast signal on the satellite broadcast system with
the wireless broadband signal on the wireless network; and
2
Appeal2014-007569
Application 12/797,570
a controller for the wireless system device for
controlling other elements of the wireless system device;
wherein the coaxial network bridge enables a
device to receive the satellite broadcast signal and the wireless
broadband signal; and
wherein the coaxial network bridge enables the
satellite broadcast system to send commands via the satellite
broadcast signal to the wireless system device that are
interpreted by the controller for the wireless system device, and
the controller controls the other elements of the wireless system
device based on the commands.
REFERENCES and the REJECTION
Claims 1-3, 5, and 6 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Atad (US 2005/0068915 A 1; Mar. 31, 2005) in view of
Karaoguz (US 2006/0025132 Al; Feb. 2, 2006). Final Act. 3-7.
Claim 4 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Atad in view of Karaoguz and further in view of
Lancaster (US 2009/0113044 Al; Apr. 30, 2009). Final Act. 7.
Claims 7-9, 11, 13, and 15-17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Atad in view of Karaoguz and further in
view of Lin (US 2008/0285504 Al; Nov. 20, 2008). Final Act. 7-13.
Claims 10 and 18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Atad in view of Karaoguz, Lin, and Holliday (US
2008/0060047 Al; Mar. 6, 2008). Final Act. 13-14.
Claim 14 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Atad in view of Karaoguz, Lin, and Lancaster. Final Act.
14--15.
3
Appeal2014-007569
Application 12/797,570
ISSUE
The pivotal issue is whether the Examiner erred in finding that the
combination of Atad and Karaoguz disclose "the coaxial network bridge
enables the satellite broadcast system to send commands via the satellite
broadcast signal to the wireless system device that are interpreted by the
controller for the wireless system device, and the controller controls the
other elements of the wireless system device based on the commands," as
recited in claim 1.
ANALYSIS
We adopt the Examiner's findings in the Answer and add the
following primarily for emphasis.
Regarding independent claim 1, Appellant argues the Examiner erred
because "the satellite broadcast signals in Atad contain only a digital TV
feed" (App. Br. 9) and "the broadband access gateway ofKaraoguz, which
may comprise a satellite connection, does not comprise a satellite broadcast
system" (App. Br. 10). Appellant contends "[t]he satellite connection of
Karaoguz transmits signals in both directions, i.e., to and from the satellite,
unlike a satellite broadcast system" (Reply Br. 4).
We are not persuaded of Examiner error. The Examiner finds Atad
teaches a system "that enable[ s] the combination of a wireless WAN signal
with a received satellite signal for transmission to the set-top box either
wirelessly or over a coax cable" (Ans. 2, citing Atad i-fi-f 100, 106-107). The
Examiner additionally finds, and we agree, that "Karaoguz teaches a system
wherein commands may be sent from an entity accessible via a satellite
provider over a satellite connection to a gateway, router, or an access
4
Appeal2014-007569
Application 12/797,570
device" (Ans. 2-3, citing Karaoguz iii! 71-72, 74), which "may be used to
broadcast video and commands to wireless system devices" (Ans. 3).
Appellant's argument that the satellite connection in Karaoguz is not a
broadcast system (see App. Br. 10) is unpersuasive because the satellite
connection of Karaoguz that transmits signals in both directions is the same
as a system transmitting two (unicast) broadcast signals, and thus Karaoguz
performs the functions of a broadcast system. See Ans. 3. Therefore, the
teachings of Atad and Karaoguz, when combined in the manner found by the
Examiner, lead to the claimed invention. Here, Appellant attacks the
references individually and fails to address the Examiner's findings. See In
re Merck & Co., Inc., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986) ("Non-
obviousness cannot be established by attacking references individually
where the rejection is based upon the teachings of a combination of
references.").
Regarding independent claim 11, Appellant argues the same
deficiencies of Atad and Karaoguz separately (see App. Br. 15-17, Reply
Br. 7-11), and additionally contends "there are no satellite broadcast signals
containing commands for the wireless system device in Lin" (App. Br. 17,
Reply Br. 11). Appellant's arguments regarding claim 11 are non-
persuasive for the same reasons shown above regarding claim 1.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of independent
claims 1and11, and dependent claims 2-10 and 13-18 not separately
argued with particularity.
5
Appeal2014-007569
Application 12/797,570
CONCLUSION
The Examiner did not err in finding in finding that the combination of
Atad and Karaoguz disclose "the coaxial network bridge enables the satellite
broadcast system to send commands via the satellite broadcast signal to the
wireless system device that are interpreted by the controller for the wireless
system device, and the controller controls the other elements of the wireless
system device based on the commands," as recited in claim 1.
DECISION
The Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-11 and 13-18 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)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED
6