Ex Parte Wasden et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jul 18, 2014

11929373 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 18, 2014)

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.
11/929,373 10/30/2007 Mitchell B. Wasden PD-207102 8556
20991 7590 07/21/2014
THE DIRECTV GROUP, INC.
PATENT DOCKET ADMINISTRATION
CA / LA1 / A109
2230 E. IMPERIAL HIGHWAY
EL SEGUNDO, CA 90245
EXAMINER
BILODEAU, DAVID
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2648
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/21/2014 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 MITCHELL B. WASDEN, VISHAL ARYA,
DANIEL M. MINER, DARREN M. ST. LAURENT, and
DAVID T. BOLTZ
____________

Appeal 2012-002865
Application 11/929,373
Technology Center 2600
____________

Before JOSEPH L. DIXON, ST. JOHN COURTENAY III, and
CARLA M. KRIVAK, Administrative Patent Judges.

KRIVAK, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of
claims 1-25. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.

Appeal 2012-002865
Application 11/929,373

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants’ claimed invention is directed to a “method and system for
monitoring and operating a local collection facility from a remote facility of
a signal collection and uplinking system” (Spec. ¶[0001]).
Independent claim 1, reproduced below, is representative of the
subject matter on appeal.
1. A method of forming an output signal comprising:
providing a plurality of primary receiver circuit modules at a local
collection facility, said plurality of primary receiver circuit modules
comprising a first receiver circuit module;
receiving a plurality of channel signals, said plurality of channel
signals having a first channel signal;
communicating the first channel signal to the first receiver circuit
module and a second receiver circuit module;
forming a first IP signal corresponding to the first channel signal at
the first receiver circuit module;
communicating the first IP signal corresponding to the first channel
signal from the local collection facility through the IP network backhaul to
the remote facility;
decoding the IP signal to form a first decoded signal at the remote
facility;
encoding the first decoded signal at a first encoder module into a first
encoded signal at the remote facility;
multiplexing the first encoded signal into a first multiplexed signal at
the remote facility; and
generating the output signal at the remote facility in response to the
multiplexed signal;
providing a plurality of backup receiver circuit modules at the local
collection facility, each of said plurality of backup receiver circuit modules
corresponding to a respective one of the plurality of primary circuit modules,
said plurality of backup receiver circuit modules comprising the second
receiver circuit module forming a second IP signal from the first channel
signal;
previewing a second receiver circuit module by communicating the
second IP signal corresponding to the first channel signal from the local
collection facility through the IP network backhaul to the remote facility;
Appeal 2012-002865
Application 11/929,373

3
when the second IP signal is acceptable, discontinuing the steps of
decoding the first IP signal to form a first decoded signal, encoding the first
decoded signal at a first encoder module into a first encoded signal,
multiplexing the first encoded signal into a first multiplexed signal and
generating the output signal at the remote facility in response to the
multiplexed signal;
decoding the second IP signal to form a second decoded signal;
encoding the second decoded signal at the first encoder module into a
second encoded signal;
multiplexing the second encoded signal into a second multiplexed
signal; and
generating the output signal at the remote facility in response to the
second multiplexed signal.

REFERENCES and REJECTION
The Examiner rejected claims 1–25 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based
upon the teachings of Summers (US 2003/0217362 Al; Nov. 20, 2003),
Massey (US 2001/0026537 Al; Oct. 4, 2001) and Wang (US 2004/0022535
A1; Feb. 5, 2004).

ANALYSIS
Appellants contend Summers receives IP signals rather than
generating and transmitting IP signals as claimed (App. Br. 9). Further,
Appellants contend Summers does not teach the broadcast center and uplink
facility are connected by an internet backhaul (App. Br. 10). Appellants
then contend Massey does not cure Summers’ deficiencies as Summers is
only tangentially related to Direct-to-Home DTH transmissions (App. Br.
10–11). Appellants also contend Wang does not cure the deficiencies of
Summers and Massey (App. Br. 11). That is, Wang does not disclose a
plurality of backup receiver circuit modules corresponding to a respective
Appeal 2012-002865
Application 11/929,373

4
one of a plurality of primary circuit modules (App. Br. 13). Further,
Appellants contend, Wang teaches away from the Examiner’s proposed
combination (App. Br. 14). Appellants’ arguments are not compelling.
Upon consideration of the evidence on this record and each of
Appellants’ contentions, we find the preponderance of evidence supports the
Examiner’s conclusions that the subject matter of Appellants’ claims 1–25 is
unpatentable over the combination of Summers, Massey, and Wang.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejections of these claims for the
reasons set forth in the Answer (Ans. 20–27). For emphasis only, we
provide the following:
The Examiner finds, and we agree, Summers’ broadcast center
corresponds to Appellants local collection facility and Summers’ uplink
facility corresponds to Appellants’ remote facility (Ans. 20–22). Appellants
claim language is broad and Appellants have not identified any specific
definition in Appellants’ Specification for these terms. We also agree
Summers teaches and suggests Summers’ broadcast center generates IP
signals (Ans. 21). Appellants’ contention that Summers does not teach the
broadcast center and uplink facility are connected by an internet backhaul
and that Massey does not cure this deficiency (App. Br. 10–11) is without
merit. We agree with the Examiner’s finding Massey discloses this feature
(Ans. 22).
Appellants’ assertion that Wang does not cure the deficiencies of
Summers and Massey (App. Br. 11, 13), and also teaches away from the
Examiner’s proposed combination (App. Br. 14–15) is also without merit.
Our reviewing court guides that the mere failure of a reference to mention
alternatives known in the art does not constitute a teaching away from using
Appeal 2012-002865
Application 11/929,373

5
the known elements. See DePuy Spine, Inc. v. Medtronic Sofamor Danek,
Inc., 567 F.3d 1314, 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (“A reference does not teach
away […] if it merely expresses a general preference for an alternative
invention but does not ‘criticize, discredit, or otherwise discourage’
investigation into the invention claimed.”). “A reference may be said to
teach away when a person of ordinary skill, upon reading the reference,
would be discouraged from following the path set out in the reference, or
would be led in a direction divergent from the path that was taken by the
applicant.” In re Gurley, 27 F.3d 551, 553 (Fed. Cir. 1994). Wang, as the
Examiner points out, mentions a system can be expensive; however, there is
no disparagement or discouragement for the combination (Ans. 19).
Additionally, we agree with the Examiner that Wang was cited to show it is
common in the art to utilize backup receivers for system reliability, and it
would have been obvious to an ordinarily skilled artisan to provide backup
receivers to a respective one of a plurality of primary circuit modules, as
claimed (Ans. 23). Appellants do not rebut this assertion.
On this record, we are not persuaded the Examiner’s reading of the
claims on the cited combination of references is overly broad, unreasonable,
or inconsistent with the Specification. Thus, in light of the broad terms
recited in the claims and the arguments presented, Appellants have failed to
clearly distinguish their claimed invention over the prior art relied on by the
Examiner. We therefore sustain the Examiner’s rejection of independent
claims 1–25 over the combination of Summers, Massey, and Wang.

DECISION
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1–25 under 35 U.S.C.
Appeal 2012-002865
Application 11/929,373

6
§ 103(a) 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

dw