Ex Parte Davis et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardDec 13, 2012

10123383 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 13, 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. 10/123,383 04/15/2002 Robert Davis PD-201092 7181 20991 7590 12/13/2012 THE DIRECTV GROUP, INC. PATENT DOCKET ADMINISTRATION CA / LA1 / A109 2230 E. IMPERIAL HIGHWAY EL SEGUNDO, CA 90245 EXAMINER RAMAN, USHA ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2424 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 12/13/2012 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 ROBERT DAVIS, MICHAEL FICCO, and PETER PARDEE1 ____________ Appeal 2010-007329 Application 10/123,383 Technology Center 2400 ____________ Before JOHN A. JEFFERY, JEREMY J. CURCURI, and JAMES B. ARPIN, Administrative Patent Judges. ARPIN, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-8 and 10-54.2 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm.3 1 DirecTV Group, Inc. is the real party in interest. 2 Claim 9 is cancelled. 3 Throughout this opinion, we refer to (1) the Appeal Brief (App. Br.) filed October 26, 2009; (2) the Examiner’s Answer (Ans.) mailed December 8, 2009; and (3) the Reply Brief (Reply Br.) filed February 8, 2010. Appeal 2010-007329 Application 10/123,383 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants’ invention is directed to satellite communication systems and to interfaces for linking a satellite antenna and a Low Noise Block (LNB) converter to a local area network (LAN) at a particular site, to which a plurality of indoor units (IDUs) are connected. See generally Spec. ¶¶ [0002], [0003], [0011]; Figs. 3-5. Claims 1 and 18 are illustrative and are reproduced below with disputed limitations emphasized: 1. A satellite communication system, comprising: at least one satellite antenna for receiving a signal transmitted from a satellite, wherein said satellite antenna includes at least one Low Noise Block (LNB) converter, wherein the satellite antenna and the LNB are located at an outdoor unit (ODU) site; an interface device including a connection to said LNB, and further including a connection to a local area network (LAN) connecting together a plurality of indoor units (IDUs) that are located at an indoor unit site, wherein said interface device converts said transmitted signal received from said LNB into a digital baseband signal and the digital baseband signal is transmitted across said LAN to at least one of the plurality of IDUs; a storage device connected to said LAN for storing said transmitted digital baseband signal, the storage device located at the IDU site; and a server application for downloading data comprising at least a portion of the stored transmitted digital baseband signal to the at least one of the plurality of IDUs, according to a request for said downloaded data by the at least one of the plurality of IDUs. 18. An apparatus for interfacing one or more Low Noise Block converters (LNBs) of at least one satellite antenna located at an outdoor unit (ODU) site to a plurality of indoor units (IDUs) located at an indoor unit site, the apparatus comprising: at least one first port for connection to each of the one or more LNBs at the ODU site; Appeal 2010-007329 Application 10/123,383 3 a signal processing device for converting signals received through said at least one first port into digital baseband signals; and a second port for connection to a local area network (LAN) for transmitting said digital baseband signals to one or more of the plurality of IDUs at the IDU site through said LAN; wherein a storage device located at the IDU site is connected to said LAN for storing said digital baseband signals that have been transmitted through said LAN; and a server application is configured for downloading data comprising at least a portion of the stored digital baseband signals to one or more of the plurality of IDUs, according to a request for said downloaded data by said one or more of the plurality of IDUs. The Examiner relies on the following references as evidence of unpatentability: Budow US 5,521,631 May, 28, 1996 Williams US 5,970,386 Oct. 19, 1999 Humpleman4 US 6,198,479 B1 Mar. 6, 2001 Humpleman5 US 6,493,874 B2 Dec. 10, 2002 Ram US 7,260,069 B2 Aug. 21, 2007 THE REJECTIONS 1. The Examiner rejected claims 1-3, 5-8, 10, 12-23, 31-37, 39-50, and 52-546 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Humpleman I and Budow. Ans. 3-10. 4 This reference is referred to hereinafter as “Humpleman II.” 5 This reference is referred to hereinafter as “Humpleman I.” 6 The Examiner appears to have omitted inadvertently claim 54 from this list of rejected claims. Because both the Examiner and Appellants treat this claim as rejected (see Ans. 2; App. Br. 2; Reply Br. 1), we treat claim 54 as Appeal 2010-007329 Application 10/123,383 4 2. The Examiner rejected claims 4, 25-30, and 51 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Humpleman I, Budow, and Humpleman II. Id. at 10-14. 3. The Examiner rejected claims 11 and 24 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Humpleman I, Budow, and Ram. Id. at 14-15. 4. The Examiner rejected claim 38 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Humpleman I, Budow, and Williams. Id. at 15-16. OBVIOUSNESS REJECTION OVER HUMPLEMAN I AND BUDOW Regarding claim 1, the Examiner finds that Humpleman I teaches or suggests all recited limitations, except for (1) a satellite antenna and a LNB converter, (2) a storage device for storing transmitted digital baseband signals, and (3) a server application for downloading data comprising at least a portion of the stored transmitted digital baseband signal to at least one of the plurality of IDUs according to a request. Id. at 3-4. The Examiner finds, however, that Budow teaches or suggests these missing limitations,7 and that it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Humpleman I and Budow to achieve the claimed invention. Id. at 4-5. rejected on the same grounds as independent claim 53, from which it depends. 7 Budow does not teach or suggest that the downlink comprises an LNB converter. Nevertheless, the Examiner takes Official Notice that LNB converters are well known in the art at the time of the invention. Ans. 4. Appellants do not contest this Official Notice. Appeal 2010-007329 Application 10/123,383 5 Initially, we note that the disputed limitations appear in substantially identical form in each of the rejected independent claims 1, 18, 31, and 53.8 Appellants argue that Budow does not teach or suggest (1) that a storage device is located at the IDU site (App. Br. 10-11); (2) that both the storage device and the application server are connected to the LAN, such that digital baseband signals are transmitted across the LAN before storage on the storage device (id. at 11-14); and (3) that the storage device is located at the same location as the IDU (id. at 13-14). Further, Appellants argue that, unlike network interface units (NIUs) 32 of Humpleman I, the interface device of Appellants’ claim 1 is not located at the IDU site. Id. at 14-15. ISSUE Under § 103, has the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1 by finding that Huppleman I and Budow would have taught or suggested “a storage device connected to said LAN for storing said transmitted digital baseband signal, the storage device located at the IDU site”? ANALYSIS 1. Claim Construction. We begin by construing the disputed limitations of claim 1 which recites, in pertinent part, a storage device connected to said LAN for storing said transmitted digital baseband signal, the storage device located at the IDU site; and a server application for downloading data comprising at least a portion of the stored transmitted digital baseband signal to the at least one of the plurality of IDUs, according to a 8 These limitations also appear in independent claim 25 which is rejected as unpatentable over a different combination of references. App. Br. 23. Appeal 2010-007329 Application 10/123,383 6 request for said downloaded data by the at least one of the plurality of IDUs. In construing these limitations, we apply the broadest reasonable meaning of the words in their ordinary usage, as those words would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art, taking into account any definitions supplied by Appellants’ Specification. In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054 (Fed. Cir. 1997). A storage device is generally understood to be a device, such as a memory, for receiving and storing information. As the Specification makes clear, the storage device, such as a storage device 38, also must be capable of permitting stored information to be accessed by other devices. See Spec. ¶¶ [0063], [0066]; Fig. 4. Referring to Figure 4, a server application 36 and storage device 38 are connected to wired LAN 50 in site 30. However, it should be noted that this embodiment could also be implemented in the wireless LAN configuration shown in Fig. 3. It is further noted that the storage device 38 need not be part of the LAN 50, but merely accessible by the LAN 50. It is further noted that the server application 36 and/or the storage device 38 could be part of the interface 40. Spec. ¶ [0061] (emphases added). In claims 1 and 18, we note that the storage device is described as connected to the LAN, but that the server application is not. Therefore, we construe claims 1 and 18 to require that the storage device is connected to the LAN, but that these claims encompass embodiments in which the server application is and is not connected to the LAN. According to claims 1 and 18, “the storage device is located at the IDU site.” A pertinent definition of a “site” is “the position or location of a town, building, etc., esp. as to its environment.” RANDOM HOUSE Appeal 2010-007329 Application 10/123,383 7 WEBSTER’S COLLEGE DICTIONARY 1225 (2d Random House ed. 1999). Referring to Figures 2-4, Appellants describe plural IDUs 32 located at a particular site 30. Spec. ¶¶ [0049], [0050], [0058]-[0061]. Thus, we construe an IDU site simply to describe the location of plural IDUs relative to components located at other sites. Appellants distinguish between components of the system of claim 1 or the apparatus of claim 18 based on whether or not those components are located at the IDU site and, for example, the ODU site. For example, claims 1 and 18 recite that the at least one satellite antenna and the LNB converter are located at an ODU site, but that the plurality of IDUs and the storage device are located at the IDU site. Neither claim, however, identifies the location of the interface device or of the server application. Although, like the IDUs, claims 1 and 18 recite that the interface is “connected” to the LAN, we find that the interface may be located at the IDU site or the ODU site or at neither or both of those sites. See Spec. ¶ [0036] (interface 40 may be part of ODU 10 or “apart from the ODU 10 either inside building 30 . . . or at another outdoor location . . . ” (emphasis added)); Fig. 2. Similarly, the location of server application may be the IDU site or the ODU site or neither or both of those sites. See Spec. ¶ [0061] (“server application 36 . . . could be part of the interface 40”); Fig. 4. Therefore, we do not construe claims 1 and 18 as limiting the location of the interface or of the server application. Moreover, because the locations of the interface and the server application are not limited by claim 1 or 18, we do not construe the LAN as included entirely with the IDU site. In addition, claim 18 does specify the location of the at least one first port and the at least one second port for connection and the signal processing Appeal 2010-007329 Application 10/123,383 8 device of the apparatus for interfacing. Thus, we construe claim 18 as reciting an apparatus for interfacing that may be located, wholly or partially, at the ODU site or at the IDU site, or some combination thereof. See Spec. ¶ [0062] (server application 36 may be executed on a processor 48 included, together with storage device 38, in interface device 40). 2. Claims 1-3, 5-8, 10, 12-17, 37, and 39-50. As noted above, Appellants argue that Budow does not teach or suggest (1) that a storage device is located at the IDU site (App. Br. 10-11); (2) that both storage device and the application server are connected to the LAN, such that digital baseband signals are transmitted across the LAN before storage on the storage device (id. at 11-14); and (3) that the storage device is located at the same location as the IDU (id. at 13-14). Further, Appellants argue that, unlike NIUs 32 of Humpleman I, the interface device of Appellants’ claim 1 is not located at the IDU site. Id. at 14-15. For the following reasons, we are not persuaded that any of these arguments distinguish the invention of claim 1 over Humpleman I and Budow. Appellants argue that claim 1 recites that the storage device is located at the IDU site and that the interface and the storage device are connected to the LAN. Id. at 11. Because claim 1 recites that the interface converts a transmitted signal to a digital baseband signal and transmits digital baseband signals across the LAN to at least one of a plurality of IDUs and because claim 1 recites that the storage device stores transmitted digital baseband signals, Appellants argue that the LAN must be located between the storage device and the interface. Id. As noted above, we agree with Appellants’ construction of claim 1. Appeal 2010-007329 Application 10/123,383 9 We find, however, that the Examiner relies on Budow for the limited purpose of teaching or suggesting including a storage device and a server application in the system described in Humpleman I. Ans. 17-19. The Examiner does not seek to modify Humpleman I to reorder the components in the manner described in Budow. The Examiner relies upon Humpleman I to teach or suggest the satellite antenna, the interface device, the LAN, the IDUs, and the connections between the interface and the LAN and between the LAN and the IDUs,9 and the Examiner need not also rely on Budow to teach or suggest these limitations. Ans. 16-17. Instead, as noted above, the Examiner relies upon Budow to teach or suggest that one of ordinary skill in the relevant art would have a reason to combine the features of Budow’s system with those of Humpleman I to achieve a system in which stored signals, such as movies, may be retrieved on demand from a storage device located at the IDU site by a server application and transmitted to at least one of plural IDUs. Id. “The test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference . . . . Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art.” In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981). Thus, “if a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would 9 The Examiner notes that, by including a digital video cassette recorder (DVCR) 16 within house 36, Humpleman I teaches or suggest a device for storing video content at the IDU site. Ans. 16-17. Although DVCR 16 may strengthen the Examiner’s rationale for combining Humpleman I and Budow, we do not here consider this additional argument which is first raised in the Examiner’s Answer. Appeal 2010-007329 Application 10/123,383 10 recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious unless its actual application is beyond his or her skill.” KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 417 (2007). Therefore, we are not persuaded by Appellants’ arguments of the impropriety of the combination of Humpleman I and Budow. Further, Appellants argue that, to the extent that the Examiner finds that Budow’s Integrated Receiver Decoder (IRD) 11 corresponds to the interface of claim 1, the remaining limitations of claim 1 are not satisfied by Humpleman I and Budow. App. Br. 11. Referring to Budow’s Figure 2, Appellants note that Budow’s video server 12 and computer control system 13 are depicted as located between IRD 11 and distribution network 14. App. Br. 13. Appellants also argue that, as depicted in their Figure 4, server application 36 and storage device 38 are connected only to the LAN. Id. at 12. Thus, Appellants argue that the combination of Humpleman I and Budow fails to teach or suggest that signals transmitted by the interface over the LAN are stored in a storage device. Nevertheless, claim 1 does not recite that the storage device and the server application are connected only to the LAN. See Ans. 20. We construe claim 1 as requiring only that the interface, the IDUs, and the storage device are connected to the LAN. Although the claims are construed in light of the specification, limitations from the specification, including the drawings, are not read into the claims. In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 1184 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Moreover, the Examiner finds that Humpleman I’s NIUs 32, rather than Budow’s IRD 11, teach or suggest the interface of Appellants’ claim 1. Ans. 18. Therefore, for these reasons, we are not persuaded by Appellants’ argument. Appeal 2010-007329 Application 10/123,383 11 Although Appellants acknowledge that Budow’s video server 12, computer control system 13, and room terminals 15 are located at the same facility, Appellants assert that the “IDU site” of claim 1 corresponds to Budow’s hotel room containing room terminal 15. App. Br. 13. Consequently, Appellants argue that Budow does not teach or suggest the limitations of claim 1 that are missing from Humpleman I because Budow’s video server 12 and computer control system 13 are not shown to be located in the same hotel room as room terminal 15. Id. The language of claim 1, however, does not impose so narrow a definition of the term “IDU site.” In particular, we construe the term “IDU site” to describe the location of a plurality of IDUs and to include a “building,” such as Budow’s hospitality establishment. Budow, col. 2, l. 59–col. 3, l. 28; see Spec. ¶ [0036]. Therefore, for these reasons, we are not persuaded by Appellants’ argument. Finally, in Figure 2 of Humpleman I, NIUs 32 are depicted as located within house 36. Humpleman I, col. 4, ll. 45-53. We find that Humpleman I’s house 36 is an IDU site. Id. at col. 4, l. 64–col. 5, l. 25. Although Appellants acknowledge that claim 1 does not recite explicitly that the interface is not located at the IDU site, Appellants argue that it is clear from the claim language that the interface is not at the IDU site. App. Br. 15. Nevertheless, Appellants fail to identify any language of claim 1 which prevents the interface from being located at the IDU site. As noted above, we do not construe the language of claim 1 as limiting the interface to any particular location and find that the interface may be located at either the IDU site or the ODU site or at neither or both of those sites. See Spec. ¶ [0036]; Fig. 2; see also Ans. 20-21. Thus, for these reasons, we find Appellants’ argument unpersuasive. Appeal 2010-007329 Application 10/123,383 12 For the reasons set forth above, we find that the Examiner demonstrates that Humpleman I and Budow teach or suggest all of the limitations of Appellants’ claim 1. Therefore, we sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of claim 1 over Humpleman I and Budow and of claims 2, 3, 5-8, 10, 12-17, 37, and 39-50 which depend from claim 1 and are not argued separately. App. Br. 15. 3. Claims 18-23, 31-36, and 52-54. As we noted above, although independent claim 18 is directed to an apparatus for interfacing,10 this claim contains limitations substantially identical to the disputed limitations in claim 1. App. Br. 21-22. Independent claims 31 and 53 also include substantially similar limitations to the disputed limitations of claim 1. Id. at 24, 27-28. Appellants do not argue claims 18, 31, or 53 separately, but Appellants argue that the Examiner fails to demonstrate that Humpleman I and Budow teach or suggest the limitations corresponding to the disputed limitations in claims 18, 31, or 53. Id. at 15. For the reasons set forth above with respect to claim 1, we find that Appellants’ arguments are not persuasive and that the Examiner demonstrates that Humpleman I and Budow teach or suggest all of the limitations of Appellants’ claims 18, 31, and 53.11 Therefore, we sustain the 10 Because we find that Humpleman I and Budow teach or suggest the disputed limitation of claim 18, we need not decide whether the description of the storage device and the application server in a “wherein” clause further limit the apparatus for interfacing of Appellants’ claim 18 to a particular structure. See MPEP ¶ 2111.04. 11 Claim 53 recites that the LAN, the storage device, the server application, and the plurality of IDUs are located “at a common site.” Appellants do not define the term “common site,” and we construe this term to mean that the listed components are at a shared location that may be the same as the IDU Appeal 2010-007329 Application 10/123,383 13 obviousness rejection of claims 18, 31, and 53 and of claims 19-23, 32-36, 52, and 54, which depend from one of claims 18, 31, and 53 and are not argued separately. OBVIOUSNESS REJECTION OVER HUMPLEMAN I, BUDOW, AND HUMPLEMAN II In independent claim 25, Appellants describe a satellite communication system that is similar to the satellite communication system of claim 1, except that the satellite communication system of claim 25 is limited to such systems comprising a wireless LAN. App. Br. 19, 23. Similarly, Appellants’ claim 4 depends from independent claim 1 and recites that the LAN of claim 1 comprises a wireless LAN. Id. at 20. The Examiner acknowledges that Humpleman I is silent on whether internal network 34 comprises a wireless LAN. Ans. 3, 10. Nevertheless, the Examiner finds that Humpleman II teaches the use of a wireless connection and that a person of ordinary skill in the art would modify the teachings of Humpleman I and Budow, as applied to claims 4 or 25, to utilize a wireless LAN. Ans. 10-11 (citing Humpleman II, col. 5, ll. 43-48). Appellants do not argue against the Examiner’s findings regarding the teachings of Humpleman II. Instead, Appellants merely argue that Humpleman II fails to provide the limitations of claim 1 that allegedly are missing from the combination that Humpleman I and Budow. App. Br. 15- 16. For the reasons set forth above, we are not persuaded that Humpleman I and Budow fail to teach or suggest all of the limitations of claim 1. Thus, we find no error in the Examiner’s combination of Humpleman I, Budow, site or, because the storage device and the plurality of IDUs are located at the IDU site, may overlap the IDU site. Appeal 2010-007329 Application 10/123,383 14 and Humpleman II with respect to claim 4 and sustain the obviousness rejection of that claim. Further, with respect to independent claim 25, we similarly find no error in the Examiner’s combination of Humpleman I, Budow, and Humpleman II and sustain the obviousness rejection of that claim, as well as claims 26-30 and 51, which depend from and fall with claim 25. OBVIOUSNESS REJECTION OVER HUMPLEMAN I, BUDOW, AND RAM Claims 11 and 24 depend from independent claims 1 and 18, respectively.12 App. Br. 20, 22. In particular, claim 11 recites that, in the satellite communication system of claim 1, the interface device receives digital baseband signals from at least one IDU, converts the received digital baseband signal into a transmission signal, and outputs the transmission signal to an antenna configured to transmit data to a satellite. Thus, in claim 11, Appellants describe satellite communication from at least one IDU to the satellite antenna. Similarly, claim 24 recites that the apparatus for interfacing of claim 18 may comprise a second signal processing device to convert digital baseband signals received from at least one IDU into transmission data, such that the transmission data may be output to at least one LNB through the port connecting the apparatus to the LNB. Regarding claims 11 and 24, the Examiner finds that the combination of Humpleman I, Budow, and Ram teaches or suggests all of the limitations of these claims. Ans. 14-15. Appellants raise two arguments in response to this rejection. First, Appellants argue that Ram fails to provide the 12 Claim 24 depends from claim 18 via intervening claim 23. Appeal 2010-007329 Application 10/123,383 15 limitations of claim 1 or 18 that allegedly are missing from the combination that Humpleman I and Budow. App. Br. 16. In view of the foregoing discussion of the combination of Humpleman I and Budow with respect to claims 1 and 18, we do not find Appellants’ first argument with respect to the combination of Humpleman I, Budow, and Ram persuasive. Second, Appellants argue that Ram’s teaching of providing two-way communication to and from a satellite does not provide sufficient rationale for making the combination proposed by the Examiner. Id. ISSUES (1) Under § 103, has the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 11 and 24 by finding that Humpleman I, Budow, and Ram would have taught or suggested an interface device or apparatus for interfacing that converts a digital broadband signal from an IDU into a transmission signal and transmits the converted signal to a satellite antenna? (2) Is the Examiner’s reason to combine the teachings of these references supported by articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to justify the Examiner’s obviousness conclusion? ANALYSIS On this record, we find no error in the obviousness rejection of claim 11 and 24. Discussing the question of obviousness of claimed subject matter involving a combination of known elements, the U.S. Supreme Court explained that: When a work is available in one field of endeavor, design incentives and other market forces can prompt variations of it, either in the same field or a different one. If a person of ordinary skill can implement a predictable variation, § 103 likely bars its patentability. For the same reason, if a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary Appeal 2010-007329 Application 10/123,383 16 skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious unless its actual application is beyond his or her skill. KSR, 550 U.S. at 417 (emphasis added). If the claimed subject matter cannot be fairly characterized as involving the simple substitution of one known element for another or the mere application of a known technique to a piece of prior art ready for the improvement, a holding of obviousness may be based on a showing that “there was an apparent reason to combine the known elements in the fashion claimed.” Id. at 418. Such a showing requires, “some articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness” . . . . [H]owever, the analysis need not seek out precise teachings directed to the specific subject matter of the challenged claim, for a court can take account of the inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ. Id. (quoting In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006)). The combination of Humpleman I and Budow does not disclose a second signal processing device or outputting the transmission signal to one or more LNB converters. Ans. 15. Appellants do not contest that Ram discloses two-way satellite communication, and Ram also teaches or suggests the use of a satellite transceiver 4, such as an adapter card in a personal computer, that receives or sends satellite transmission signals at a residence 15 from or to a VSAT antenna 14. Final Rej. 13 (citing Ram, col. 4, ll. 45-60 (describing the VSAT system of Fig. 1)). Claims 1 and 18, from which claims 11 and 24 depend, recite that a transmission signal received at a satellite antenna is delivered to an interface device via an LNB converter. The interface device or apparatus for interfacing converts the transmission signal to a digital broadband signal Appeal 2010-007329 Application 10/123,383 17 which is transmitted across the LAN to at least one of a plurality of IDUs. Claims 11 and 24 recite the reverse of this sequence in which the digital broadband signal is received by the interface from at least one of a plurality of IDUs and is converted into a transmission signal for relay via the LNB to the satellite antenna. We find that reversing the sequence described in claims 1 and 18 is no more than a predicable variation of the teachings of Humpleman I and Budow.13 See KSR, 550 U.S. at 417. For the reasons set forth above, we find that the Examiner did not err in finding that the combination of Humpleman I, Budow, and Ram teaches or suggests the limitations of Appellants’ invention, as described in claims 11 and 24. Further, we find that the Examiner’s reason to combine the teachings of these references is supported by articulated reasoning with sufficient rational underpinning to justify the obviousness conclusion. Therefore, we sustain the obviousness rejection of claims 11 and 24. OBVIOUSNESS REJECTION OVER HUMPLEMAN I, BUDOW, AND WILLIAMS Although Appellants list claim 38 as under appeal, Appellants do not argue in response to the obviousness rejection of this claim in the Appeal Brief. App. Br. 2, 9; Reply Br. 2. For the reasons set forth above, we find that Humpleman I and Budow teach or suggest all of the limitations of claim 13 In the Answer, the Examiner identifies an asymmetric digital subscriber line (ADSL) in Humpleman I as support for combining the applied references. Because Ram describes using the receiver for two-way telephone communication (Ram, col. 4, ll. 55-60), Humpleman I’s using an ADSL may strengthen the rationale for combining these references. Nevertheless, this rationale is raised for the first time in the Answer, and we, therefore, do not consider the identification of the ADSL in affirming this rejection. Appeal 2010-007329 Application 10/123,383 18 1, from which claim 38 depends; and that Appellants have waived any arguments rebutting the grounds for rejection of claim 38 over Humpleman I, Budow, and Williams. Therefore, we sustain the obviousness rejection of claim 38. CONCLUSION The Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 1-8 and 10-54 under § 103(a). ORDER The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-8 and 10-54 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 babc