David Robert. Zufall et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Dec 12, 2019

15046091 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Dec. 12, 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.
15/046,091 02/17/2016 David Robert Zufall P00012.US.02 7396
143292 7590 12/12/2019
Wash Park IP Ltd. -- DISH
387 Corona Street, Suite 540
Denver, CO 80218
EXAMINER
TRAN, PAUL P
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2647
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/12/2019 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):
jkennedy@washparkip.com
jtkennedy.jk@gmail.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte DAVID ROBERT ZUFALL, GERARD DANIEL MULFORD,
STEFAN BERNARD RAAB, MARIAM AGHDASI SOROND, and
MARCUS JOHN LE MAITRE
Appeal 2018-006316
Application 15/046,091
Technology Center 2600
Before ROBERT E. NAPPI, JOHNNY A. KUMAR, and
JASON M. REPKO, Administrative Patent Judges.
REPKO, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the Examiner’s
decision to reject claims 98–117. Claims 1–97 have been canceled. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.

1 We use the word Appellant to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.42(a). Appellant identifies the real party in interest as “DISH Network
Corporation, of 9601 S. Meridian Blvd., Englewood, Colorado, 80112.”
Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal 2018-006316
Application 15/046,091
2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The invention relates to mobile satellite services. Spec. 1:2–3.
According to the Specification, the invention addresses the need for a hybrid
communication system that uses both satellite and terrestrial networks to
provide effective coverage to both urban and rural subscribers. Id. at 2:23–
3:1. Claims 98, 99, 109, and 112 are independent. Claim 98 is reproduced
below.
98. A system for providing mobile interactive satellite services,
comprising:
a ground station;
a satellite;
a terrestrial base transceiver station; and
a mobile unit;
wherein the ground station is communicatively connected to the
satellite and the terrestrial base transceiver station;
wherein the satellite operates to communicate a first portion of
data related to a multicast component between the ground
station and the mobile unit using a first multicast beam;
wherein the terrestrial base transceiver station operates to
communicate a second portion of data to the mobile unit
using a second multicast beam;
wherein the first portion of data is distinct from the second
portion of data; and
wherein the mobile unit is configured to combine, upon
receiving the first multicast beam and the second
multicast beam, the first portion of data with the second
portion of data.
Appeal Br. 44, Claims App.2

2 Throughout this opinion, we refer to the Final Office Action (“Final”),
mailed June 16, 2017; the Advisory Action (“Advisory”), mailed October 5,
2017; the Appeal Brief (“Appeal Br.”), filed January 8, 2018; the
Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.”), mailed April 5, 2018; and Reply Brief (“Reply
Br.”), filed on June 2, 2018.
Appeal 2018-006316
Application 15/046,091
3
REFERENCES
Name Reference Date
Wang US 2004/0110467 A1 June 10, 2004
Spreizer US 2005/0136832 A1 June 23, 2005
Campanella US 6,944,139 B1 Sept. 13, 2005
Alao US 7,017,175 B2 Mar. 21,2006
Nix US 2009/0007185 A1 Jan. 1, 2009

REJECTIONS
The Examiner rejects claims 98–110, 112–115, and 117 under pre-
AIA3 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Spreizer, Campanella, and
Wang. Ans. 3–12.
The Examiner rejects claim 111 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Spreizer, Campanella, Wang, and Alao. Ans. 12–13.
The Examiner rejects claim 116 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Spreizer, Campanella, Wang, and Nix. Ans. 13–14.
OPINION
The Examiner’s Rejection over Spreizer, Campanella, and Wang
In the combination of Spreizer, Campanella, and Wang, the Examiner
finds that Spreizer does not teach or suggest a mobile unit that combines two
distinct portions of data as recited in claim 98. Ans. 4. In concluding that this
subject matter would have been obvious, the Examiner finds that
Campanella’s mobile unit combines two distinct portions of data when two
multicast beams are received. Id. at 4–5.

3 Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (AIA), Pub. L. No. 112-29, § 3, 125
Stat. 284, 285–93 (2011).
Appeal 2018-006316
Application 15/046,091
4
The Examiner relies on the same rationale for similar limitations that
appear in the other independent claims. See id. at 4–5 (rejecting claim 112),
6–7 (rejecting claim 99), 10–11 (rejecting claim 109).
Appellant’s Arguments
Appellant argues that Campanella does not combine two portions of
data, as required by claims 98, 99, and 109. Appeal Br. 40; Reply Br. 2.
Rather, Appellant asserts that Campanella merely selects one signal from
multiple received signals. Reply Br. 2. Also, Appellant argues that
Campanella’s two signals carry the same data, not distinct portions of data as
required by claims 98, 99, and 112. Appeal Br. 40.
Issues
I. Did the Examiner err in finding that Campanella teaches or suggests
combining the two portions of data recited in claims 98, 99, and 109?
II. Did the Examiner err in finding that Campanella teaches or
suggests that the two portions of data are distinct, as recited in claims 98, 99,
and 112?
Analysis
I
Claim 98 recites, in part, “the mobile unit is configured to combine,
upon receiving the first multicast beam and the second multicast beam, the
first portion of data with the second portion of data.” Appeal Br. 44 (Claims
App). Claims 99 and 109 recite similar limitations. Id. at 45, 47.
We agree with Appellant that the Examiner has not shown that
Campanella teaches or suggests combining the recited data. Id. at 40;
Reply Br. 2.
Specifically, Campanella “combines line-of-sight (LOS) reception
of satellite waveforms” with the signals from terrestrial repeaters 18.
Appeal 2018-006316
Application 15/046,091
5
Campanella 3:53–59, cited in Ans. 5. Although Campanella uses the word
“combines” here, Campanella explains that radio receiver 14 receives both
satellite and terrestrial signals and selects one signal as the receiver output.
Id. at 3:49–52. By contrast, the claim requires combining two distinct
portions of data, not selecting one signal over another.
To be sure, Campanella teaches a “broadcast channel to diversity
combiner 240.” See, e.g., id., Fig. 6. But, as the Examiner concedes,
Campanella’s combining is different from merging data. Advisory 6. In
particular, the diversity combiner 240 selects one of two broadcast channels
(BCs) for further processing. Campanella 11:31–34. Here, the BCs are
divided into service channels to deliver data, audio, video, and multimedia.
Id. at 7:32–34. To select the BC, the diversity combiner 240 looks for the
recovered BC with the fewest errors from the demodulator. Id. at 11:31–34.
Unlike the system recited in claim 98, the Examiner has not shown
that Campanella’s combiner 240 combines two portions of data.
Appeal Br. 40; Reply Br. 2. In fact, Campanella does not even recover the
service before the selection. Campanella 11:41–43. Instead, Campanella
supplies the selected BC to the appropriate source decoder (244) to recover
the service after the selection. Id.; see also id., Fig. 6 (showing decoder 244
after combiner 240). Thus, the Examiner has not shown that Campanella
teaches or suggests a mobile unit that combines the recited two portions of
data. Appeal Br. 40; Reply Br. 2.
II
Claim 98 further requires that the two portions of data are “distinct.”
Appeal Br. 44, Claims App. Claims 99 and 112 recite a similar limitation.
Id. at 45, 48.
Appeal 2018-006316
Application 15/046,091
6
We agree with Appellant that the Examiner has not shown that
Campanella teaches or suggests that the two portions of data are “distinct,”
as required by claim 98. Id. at 40; Reply Br. 2.
Rather, Campanella uses terrestrial repeaters 18 to amplify and repeat
a received satellite signal. Campanella 10:39–51. The Examiner
acknowledges that Campanella’s signals contain the same information.
Ans. 10. For instance, claim 109 recites that the two portions of data include
the “same information,” unlike claims 98, 99, and 112. Appeal Br. 48. And
in rejecting claim 109, the Examiner finds that the “same signal [is]
transmitted from satellite LOS and from terrestrial repeater 18.” Ans. 10
(citing Campanella Fig. 2, 11:44–12:11).
The Examiner determines that, although the claims recite that the data
is “distinct,” claims 98, 99, and 112 do not exclude Campanella’s teachings.
Id. We, however, agree with Appellant that the Examiner’s interpretation
here is unreasonable. See, e.g., Appeal Br. 39; Reply Br. 2–6.
In particular, the Examiner finds that the Specification discloses an
embodiment where the invention transmits the same data. Ans. 17 (citing
Spec. 16:17–23). Indeed, this appears to be the embodiment encompassed by
claim 109. Accord Appeal Br. 9. But claims 98, 99, and 112 expressly
exclude this from their scope by reciting that the data “is distinct.” Id. at 44–
45, 49, Claims App. We see no persuasive reason why “distinct” data
portions should be interpreted to encompass portions with the same
information. See Spec. 16:17–23.
Instead, the Specification describes other embodiments that are more
consistent with claims 98, 99, and 112. Of particular relevance to those
claims, the Specification explains that “video stream[s] with different
content” can be sent in the different data portions. Id. at 24:14–18, quoted in
Appeal 2018-006316
Application 15/046,091
7
Appeal Br. 7. This allows for switching between different video streams for
interactive video advertising, for example. Id. at 24:17–19. This disclosure
further bolsters Appellant’s contention that the recited distinct data portions
do not include the same information. See Appeal Br. 39; Reply Br. 2–6.
Because the Examiner has not shown that Campanella’s data portions
contain different information, we agree that the Examiner has erred in
finding that Campanella teaches or suggests that the first portion of data is
distinct from the second portion of data, as recited in claims 98, 99, and 112.
III
The Examiner does not rely on the additional references to cure the
deficiencies in Campanella that we described above. See Ans. 3–12.
For the reasons discussed in §§ I and II, we do not sustain the
Examiner’s rejection of independent claims 98 and 99 and the corresponding
dependent claims (100–108 and 110).
For the reasons discussed in § I, we do not sustain the Examiner’s
rejection of independent claim 109 and claim 110, which depends from
claim 109.
For the reasons discussed in § II, we do not sustain the Examiner’s
rejection of claim 112 and its corresponding dependent claims (113–115 and
117).
The Remaining Obviousness Rejections
We also do not sustain the rejections of dependent claims 111 and 116
for the same reasons discussed above in connection with their respective
independent claims. Specifically, the Examiner did not rely on the additional
references, Alao or Nix, to teach the features missing from Campanella. See
Ans. 12–14. Thus, the Examiner does not show that Alao or Nix cures the
deficiency discussed above. See id.
Appeal 2018-006316
Application 15/046,091
8
CONCLUSION
We reverse the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 98–117.

DECISION SUMMARY
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § References(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
98–110,
112–115,
117
103 (a) Spreizer,
Campanella, Wang
98–110,
112–115,
117
111 103 (a) Spreizer,
Campanella, Wang,
Alao
111
116 103 (a) Spreizer,
Campanella, Wang,
Nix
116
Overall
Outcome
98–117

REVERSED