Ex Parte Cordero et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardOct 31, 2012

10167242 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 31, 2012)

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. 10/167,242 06/11/2002 Rodrigo Cordero S1022.80918US00 5154 23628 7590 10/31/2012 WOLF GREENFIELD & SACKS, P.C. 600 ATLANTIC AVENUE BOSTON, MA 02210-2206 EXAMINER IDOWU, OLUGBENGA O ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2425 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 10/31/2012 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 RODRIGO CORDERO and PATRICE WOODWARD ____________ Appeal 2010-006330 Application 10/167,242 Technology Center 2400 ____________ Before MAHSHID D. SAADAT, JASON V. MORGAN, and JOHN G. NEW, Administrative Patent Judges. SAADAT, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of claims 1-15 which constitute all the claims pending in this application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We reverse. Appeal 2010-006330 Application 10/167,242 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Introduction Appellants’ invention relates to data receivers including a filtering arrangement for filtering the received data stream (see Spec. 5:12-28). Exemplary Claim Claim 1 is illustrative of the invention and reads as follows. 1. A receiver for receiving a data stream, said receiver comprising a filtering arrangement for filtering said received data stream and a processor, said filtering arrangement being arranged to load at least a part of said data stream, to filter at least part of said data stream and to read at least part of said data stream, said filtering arrangement having a first mode in which said steps are carried out and a second mode in which said processor is arranged to interrupt the steps carried out by said filtering arrangement and to filter at least part of said data stream. Rejections Claims 1-11, 13, and 15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as anticipated by Takai (US 6,651,250 B1). (See Ans. 4-8). 1 Claim 12 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Takai and Oishi (US 6,779,195 B2). (See Ans. 9). Claim 14 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Takai and Ganon (US 2002/0066103 A1). (See Ans. 9- 10). ANALYSIS The Examiner finds that Takai teaches the claimed filtering arrangement as the receiver components 2 and 4 depicted in Figure 1 and the 1 We refer to the second Examiner’s Answer, mailed December 23, 2009. Appeal 2010-006330 Application 10/167,242 3 claimed processor as the CPU 13 (Ans. 4). The Examiner further finds that the claimed first mode is met when a signal that is not scrambled is filtered and the second mode is met when a signal is scrambled allowing the CPU to interrupt the filtering process by descrambling and control the filtering process (Ans. 4-5). The Examiner specifically explains that: . . . and the second mode is when a signal is scrambled, therefore the filtering is temporarily interrupted because the signal has to be descrambled prior to filtering, see col. 7, lines 13 - 20) and to filter at least part of said data stream (CPU interrupting the filtering process by descrambling and CPU controlling the filtering process after descrambling, col. 7, lines 13 - 26). (Ans. 5). Appellants contend that the system described in Takai only has a single mode in which the unscrambled data stream is filtered (App. Br. 5). Appellants argue that the filter 33 always filters descrambled data stream that is provided by the descrambler 3 (id.). Additionally, Appellants contend that the portions of Takai relied on by the Examiner disclose a CPU 13 for providing a key to be used for descrambling, which does not interrupt the steps carried out by the filter (App. Br. 6). Appellants conclude that because the filtering of the data stream takes place after the CPU 13 provides the key to the descrambler 3, the CPU 13 does not interrupt the steps performed by the filter 33 (included in the filter and host bus controller 4) (App. Br. 6). We agree with Appellants’ contentions above that Takai does not disclose a second mode wherein “said processor is arranged to interrupt the steps carried out by said filtering arrangement” recited in claim 1. In responding to Appellants’ discussion, the Examiner assumes that because both scrambled and unscrambled data go through the descrambler 3, Takai Appeal 2010-006330 Application 10/167,242 4 has two filtering modes (see Ans. 11). The Examiner further restates the position taken in the rejection explaining that the CPU 13 interrupts the filtering arrangement by sending decryption information to the descrambler when scrambled data stream is received (Ans. 11-12). However, as stated by Appellants (Reply Br. 3), the filtering process of Takai is performed in one mode where the descrambled data from descrambler 3 is provided to the filter 33 in the filter and host bus controller 4. Even if the claimed processor reads on the CPU 13 of Takai, the filtering process performed in the filter 33 is not affected by any action from the CPU 13 (see Takai, Figures 1 and 2, col. 7, ll. 1-26). CONCLUSION On the record before us, because Takai does not disclose the disputed limitations, we find that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1 and independent claim 15, which recites a similar limitation, as anticipated by Takai. Therefore, we do not sustain any of the rejections under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103, which rely on Takai for disclosing the above-discussed limitation. DECISION The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1-15 is reversed. REVERSED ELD