Ex Parte Wasden et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jul 18, 2014

11929252 (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.
11/929,252 10/30/2007 Mitchell B. Wasden PD-207101 8397
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 2012-002864
Application 11/929,252
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 2012-002864
Application 11/929,252

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;
forming an IP signal corresponding to the first channel
signal at the first receiver circuit module;
communicating the IP signal from the local collection
facility through an IP network backhaul to a remote collection
facility;
decoding the IP signal to form a first decoded signal at
the remote collection facility;
encoding the first decoded signal at a first encoder
module into a first encoded signal at the remote collection
facility;
multiplexing the first encoded signal into a multiplexed
signal at the remote collection facility; and
generating the output signal at the remote facility in
response to the multiplexed signal.

REFERENCES and REJECTIONS
The Examiner rejected claims 1, 2, 6, and 8-25 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) based upon the teachings of Summers (US 2003/0217362 Al; Nov.
20, 2003) and Massey (US 2001/0026537 Al; Oct. 4, 2001).
Appeal 2012-002864
Application 11/929,252

3
The Examiner rejected claims 3-5 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based
upon the teachings of Summers, Massey, and Wang (US 2004/0022535 A1;
Feb. 5, 2004).
The Examiner rejected claim 7 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based upon
the teachings of Summers, Massey, and Kelly (US 2002/0105976 A1; Aug.
8, 2002).

ANALYSIS
Appellants contend Summers receives IP signals rather than generate
and transmit IP signals as claimed (App. Br. 6). Thus, Summers’ broadcast
center is more like Appellants claimed regional (remote) collection center
(App. Br. 7). Further, Appellants contend Summers does not teach the
broadcast center and uplink facility are connected by an internet backhaul
(id.). Appellants then contend Massey does not cure Summers’ deficiencies
because it is directed to satellite internet backbone technology and not
Direct-to-Home (DTH) transmissions (App. Br, 7-8). Appellants’ arguments
are not compelling.
Upon consideration of the evidence on this record and each of
Appellants’ contentions, we find the preponderance of evidence on this
record supports the Examiner’s conclusions that the subject matter of
Appellants’ claims 1, 2, 6, and 8-25 is unpatentable over the combination of
Summers and Massey. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejections of
these claims for the reasons set forth in the Answer (Ans. 15-18). 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
Appeal 2012-002864
Application 11/929,252

4
facility corresponds to Appellants’ remote facility (Ans. 15-16). 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. 17-18). Appellants’ contention that Summers does not teach
the broadcast center and the uplink facility are connected by an internet
backhaul and that Massey does not cure this deficiency (App. Br. 7-8) is
without merit. We agree with the Examiner’s finding Massey discloses this
feature (Ans. 16-17).
Therefore, 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. 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. Thus, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of
independent claims 1 and 19, and claims 2, 6, and 8-25, dependent therefrom
over Summers and Massey.
With respect to claims 3-5, Appellants assert Wang does not cure the
deficiencies of Summers and Massey (App. Br. 13-14), and also teaches
away from the Examiner’s proposed combination (App. Br. 14-15). 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
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’
Appeal 2012-002864
Application 11/929,252

5
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's second link can be
considered the second IP signal (back-up IP switch) (id.). Appellants do not
rebut this finding.
With respect to Appellants’ contentions regarding claim 5 (App. Br.
16), we do not agree. Rather, we agree with and adopt the Examiner’s
findings as our own (Ans. 20).
With respect to claim 7, Appellants are arguing the references
separately and not as a combination (App. Br. 17). The Examiner articulated
a rational argument for the combination that Appellants have not rebutted
(Ans. 14).
In light of the above, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 3-
5 and 7
DECISION
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-25 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