Suresh Viswanath. Leley et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Aug 8, 2019

14364125 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Aug. 8, 2019)

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.
14/364,125 06/10/2014 Suresh Viswanath Leley PU110138 1031
24498 7590 08/08/2019
Vincent E. Duffy
THOMSON Licensing
19868 Collins Road
CANYON COUNTRY, CA 91351
EXAMINER
SHANG, ANNAN Q
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2424
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/08/2019 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):
Patricia.Verlangieri@InterDigital.com
mike.pugel@eurekovation.com
vincent.duffy@technicolor.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte SURESH VISWANATH LELEY
and THOMAS ANTHONY STAHL
____________

Appeal 2018-007511
Application 14/364,1251
Technology Center 2400
____________

Before ELENI MANTIS MERCADER, NORMAN H. BEAMER, and
ADAM J. PYONIN, Administrative Patent Judges.

BEAMER, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
Final Rejection of claims 21–40. We have jurisdiction over the pending
rejected claims under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.

1 Appellants identify Thomson Licensing DTV as the real party in interest.
(Br. 3.)
Appeal 2018-007511
Application 14/364,125

2
THE INVENTION
Appellants’ disclosed and claimed invention is directed to inserting
locally stored content into satellite broadcast programs and electronic
program guides. (Abstract.)
Independent claim 21, reproduced below, is illustrative of the subject
matter on appeal:
21. A method comprising the steps of:
receiving a frequency index map from one of at least two
satellite network systems;
receiving a request for an audio video program according
to said frequency index map;
determining a multicast address corresponding to said
audio video program; and
transmitting said multicast address.
REJECTIONS
The Examiner rejected claims 21–25, 27–33, and 35–39 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Krafft et al. (US 2012/0163290
A1, pub. June 28, 2012) (hereinafter “Krafft”) and Eastman (US 5,940,737,
iss. Aug. 17, 1999). (Final Act. 2.)
The Examiner rejected claims 26, 34, and 40 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over Krafft, Eastman, and Gervais et al. (US
2006/0235993 A1, pub. Oct. 19, 2006) (hereinafter “Gervais”). (Final Act.
6.)

Appeal 2018-007511
Application 14/364,125

3
ISSUE ON APPEAL
Appellants’ arguments in the Appeal present the following issue:2
Whether the Examiner erred in finding the combination of Krafft and
Eastman teaches or suggests the independent claim 21 limitations,
receiving a frequency index map from one of at least two
satellite network systems,
and
receiving a request for an audio video program according to
said frequency index map,
and the commensurate limitations recited in independent claims 29 and 37.
(Br. 7–8.)
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellants’
arguments. Arguments Appellants could have made but chose not to make
are deemed to be waived. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv). We adopt the
Examiner’s findings and conclusions as our own, and we add the following
primarily for emphasis.
In finding that the combination of Krafft and Eastman teaches or
suggests the claim 21 limitations at issue, the Examiner relies on the
disclosure in Krafft of a processing module used to provide channel
selection, a packet network module that forwards digital content of the
satellite signal to network clients through network address multicast
addressing. (Final Act. 3–4; Ans. 3–4; Krafft Figs. 1–7, ¶¶ 33–35, 37–40,

2 Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellants and the positions of the
Examiner, we refer to the Appeal Brief (filed Dec. 27, 2017); the Final
Office Action (mailed May 26, 2017); and the Examiner’s Answer (mailed
Apr. 24, 2018), for the respective details.
Appeal 2018-007511
Application 14/364,125

4
58, 63, 65–75, 87–104.) The Examiner further relies on the disclosure in
Eastman of receiving and processing communications signals from one of a
plurality of alternate signal characteristics (two or more satellite systems at
different characteristics at different locations or co-located) and receiving a
frequency index map used by an integrated receiver-decoder. (Final Act.
4–5; Ans. 5–6; Eastman Abstract, Figs. 1–4, 1:10–67, 2:38–55, 3:44–4:3,
5:33–6:17.)
Appellants argue Krafft’s definition of “client request” provides “no
indication that [Krafft] . . . is facing the problem sought to be solved by
using a frequency index map from one of at least two satellite network
systems and further that there is no teaching of an equivalent to frequency
index map taught in [Krafft] . . . .” (Br. 7 (citing Krafft ¶ 48).) Appellants
contend “[Krafft] . . . fails to teach or suggest the features of ‘receiving a
frequency index map from one of at least two satellite network systems’ and
‘receiving a request for an audio video program according to said frequency
index map’ as recited in the claims.” (Br. 8 (citing Krafft ¶¶ 7, 74–79, 92–
96, 101–104, 108–109).)
Based on Appellants’ characterization of Eastman, Appellants further
argue “Eastman fails to teach or suggest the features of ‘receiving a
frequency index map from one of at least two satellite network systems’ and
‘receiving a request for an audio video program according to said frequency
index map’ as recited in the claims.” (Br. 8 (citing Eastman 1:5–9, 5:45–
56).)
The Examiner finds, and we agree, that Krafft teaches “receiving a
request for an audio video program according to [the] Service Related
Components and Tables or . . . [the] Notification Table” (Ans. 4 (citing
Appeal 2018-007511
Application 14/364,125

5
Krafft Figs. 1–4, ¶¶ 33–35, 38–40) (emphasis omitted)), and “determining a
multicast address corresponding to said audio video program; and
transmitting said multicast address” (Ans. 4 (citing Krafft Figs. 5–14,
¶¶ 65–70, 74–75, 87–98, 101–104).) The Examiner further finds, and we
agree, that Eastman teaches “receiving and processing communications
signals from one of a plurality of alternate signal characteristics (two or
more satellite systems at different characteristics at different locations or
co-located) and further receives [a] frequency index map” (Ans. 5–6 (citing
Eastman Figs. 1–4, 1:10–24, 2:38–55, 3:44–4:3, 5:33–6:17) (emphasis
omitted)) so that “Eastman is relied on for teaching receiving a frequency
index map from one of at least two satellite systems.” (Ans. 6 (emphasis
omitted).)
We see no error in the Examiner’s extensive and detailed findings,
and Appellants do not address the Examiner’s findings as no Reply Brief
was filed.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejections of independent
claim 21, and independent claims 29 and 37 not argued separately, as well as
claims 22–28, 30–36, and 38–40 not argued separately with particularity.
See Br. 8–9.

CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated above, we affirm the obviousness rejections of
claims 21–40.
DECISION
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 21–40 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) is affirmed.
Appeal 2018-007511
Application 14/364,125

6
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