Ex Parte DREAS

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 8, 2019

14503601 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 8, 2019)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
14/503,601 10/01/2014
14333 7590 03/12/2019
Meagher Emanuel Laks Goldberg & Liao, LLP
ONE PALMER SQUARE
SUITE 325
Princeton, NJ 08542
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
KYLE W. DREAS
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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
CHTR-2014-07 8199
EXAMINER
KADING, JOSHUA A
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2413
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/12/2019 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):
molech@meagheremanuel.com
14333-docket@meagheremanuel.eom
tmeagher@meagheremanuel.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte KYLE W. DREAS 1
Appeal 2018-005165
Application 14/503,601
Technology Center 2400
Before ROBERT E. NAPPI, CATHERINE SHIANG, and CARLL.
SILVERMAN, Administrative Patent Judges.
NAPPI, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the Final
Rejection of claims 1 through 20.
We affirm.
INVENTION
The invention is directed to a method of using a smart splitter within a
DOCSIS/MoCA enabled coaxial distribution system, the splitter including a
management module, configured to receive identifying data associated with
at least one outlet or customer device connected thereto. Abstract. Claim 1
is illustrative of the invention and is reproduced below:
1 According to Appellant, the real party in interest is Charter
Communications Operating, LLC. App. Br. 3.
Appeal 2018-005165
Application 14/503,601
1. Apparatus for managing cable television
radio frequency (RF) signal routing at customer
equipment (CE), comprising:
a splitter, for splitting a radiofrequency (RF) signal
received from a neighborhood node into a plurality of RF
sub-signals for propagation toward respective outlets,
each outlet configured to communicate RF sub-signal to
a customer device connected thereto; and
a management module, configured to communicate
with the respective outlets via a Multimedia over Coax
(MoCA) interface to receive identifying data associated
with outlet to device connections, and to store said
identifying data in a tangible and non-transitory memory;
said management module further configured to
communicate with a service provider device to receive
naming information for at least one of said outlet to
device connections, and to store said naming information
in said tangible and non-transitory memory.
REJECTIONS AT ISSUE
The Examiner rejected claims 1 through 15, and 19 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as being unpatentable over Wu (US 2012/0320789 Al; Dec. 20, 2012)
and Barnett (US 2010/0287582 Al; Nov. 11, 2010). Final Act 3-7.2
The Examiner rejected claims 16 through 18 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over Wu, Barnett, and Beeco (US 2011/0119517 Al;
May 19, 2011). Final Act 7-8.
The Examiner rejected claim 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Wu, Barnett, and Absillis (US 2007/0127506 Al, June 7,
2007). Final Act 8.
2 Throughout this Opinion, we refer to the Appeal Brief, filed November 20,
2017 ("App. Br."), the Examiner's Answer, mailed February 20, 2018
("Answer"), and the Final Office Action, mailed May 16, 2017 ("Final
Act.").
2
Appeal 2018-005165
Application 14/503,601
ISSUES
Appellant argues the Examiner's rejection of claim 1 is in error on
pages 17 through 26 of the Appeal Brief. These arguments present us with
two issues:
1) Did the Examiner err in finding the combined teachings of Wu and
Barnett teach a splitter for splitting a radiofrequency signal as
recited in claim 1?
2) Did the Examiner err in finding the combined teaching of Wu and
Barnett teach a management module communicating with the
outlets via Multimedia over Coax (MoCA) interface to receive data
associated with the outlet to device connections, and to
communicate with a service provider to receive naming
information as recited in claim 1?
Appellant presents separate arguments with respect to claims 3, 4, 5,
9, 10 12, 13, and 16 through 19, which we address in the analysis section
below.
ANALYSIS
With respect to the first issue, Appellant argues the residential
gateway, item 22 of Wu, does not meet the claimed splitter, as it does not
receive data from a neighborhood node as claimed, but rather from a content
source (item 30). App Br. 18. Appellant reasons that the claimed
neighborhood node passes an RF signal which may include "content or other
information whereas Wu's content source, item 30, is the source of the
content and the devices have different functions with "entirely different
locations within their respective environments." App. Br. 18. Additionally,
3
Appeal 2018-005165
Application 14/503,601
Appellant argues that the claimed "splitting" is such that RF signal from the
neighborhood node is split or divided to produce a number of identical RF
signals, which are functions not performed by Wu's gateway which
distributes a signal or packet stream. App. Br. 19. Finally, Appellant argues
that even if the gateway item 22 of Wu, received a cable television signal
(signal on coaxial cable), Wu does not teach that the gateway performs a
splitting function to output the sub-signals to the devices on a coaxial cable.
App. Br. 20.
The Examiner has provided a comprehensive response to Appellant's
arguments on pages 4, 5, and 7 of the Answer. The Examiner states that
claim 1 does not require the RF sub-signals to be identical or substantially
the similar signals. Answer 4. As such, the Examiner considers Wu's
gateway that receives an RF signal and distributes the signal to the devices
to meet the claimed splitter. Answer 4. Further, the Examiner identifies that
the term "neighborhood" is a label for a node, as neither Appellant's
Specification nor claim define a function for the node or any structural
relationship between the nodes. Answer 5. Thus, the Examiner considers
Wu's content source (item 30) to meet the claimed neighborhood node.
Answer 5. Finally, the Examiner finds that although Wu does not
necessarily teach the use of MoCA and coaxial cable interfaces in the
connection with devices, Wu teaches using Home Phone Networking
Alliance interfaces which uses existing coaxial and telephone wiring.
Answer 7 ( citing Wu paras. 19, 44, and 46). Thus, showing Wu
contemplates connection with devices over Coaxial cable. Additionally, the
Examiner notes that Barnett teaches a residential gateway can make use of a
4
Appeal 2018-005165
Application 14/503,601
variety of protocols such as HPNA and MoCA. Answer 7 ( citing Barnett
para. 15).
We have reviewed Appellant's arguments directed to the first issue,
the Examiner's response, the Examiner's findings and the teachings of Wu
and Barnett and are not persuaded of error. As noted by the Examiner, the
claims do not require RF sub-signal to be identical or substantially the
similar signals. Further, Appellant's Specification does not so define
"splitting" to require such a limitation. As such, Appellant's arguments
directed to Wu not teaching splitting in this manner are not commensurate
with the scope of representative independent claim 1. Further, as noted by
the Examiner, the term "neighborhood node" does not define any particular
function or relationship between the nodes. Claim 1 merely identifies the
"neighborhood node" as the source of an RF signal that is received by the
splitter. Wu teaches the content source provides content (item 30) to the
residential gateway (item 22) via a high bandwidth network service (item
26) which may include a signal from a coaxial cable. Wu para. 19. Wu
teaches that Radio Frequency is used on coaxial cable network (item 26).
Wu para. 46. Thus, we concur with the Examiner that the content source of
Wu meets the claimed neighborhood node. Further, we are not persuaded by
Appellant's arguments that the residential gateway does not teach a coaxial
connection to the devices. App Br. 20. We note that the splitter limitation
of claim 1, recites that the communication to the devices is via a RF sub-
signal, not a coaxial connection. Nonetheless, the Examiner finds, and we
concur, that Wu in combination with Barnett teaches using a Multimedia
over Coaxial interface to connect with the devices and thus the combination
teaches both coaxial connection to devices and an RF link. Answer 7. We
5
Appeal 2018-005165
Application 14/503,601
also note that Appellant's have not addressed the Examiner's finding
regarding Wu's teaching of using HPNA to teach the claimed RF sub-signals
and suggesting the use of coaxial connections. Accordingly, Appellant's
arguments directed to the first issue have not persuaded us of error in the
Examiner's rejection of representative claim 1.
With respect to the second issue, Appellant argues that the diagnostic
application, item 44 of Wu, does not meet the claimed management module
as it does not communicate with outlets by the MoCA interface to receive
identifying information associated with the outlet to device connections, and
to communicate with a service provider to receive naming information for
the outlet to device connections. App. Br. 20-23. Specifically, Appellant
argues that the Examiner's finding that Wu teaches receiving information
from a remote location, is misplaced as a proper interpretation is that the
"the sub-net of a second location may be discovered by the gateway at a first
location." App. Br. 21-22. Additionally, Appellant argues Wu is silent as
to identifying data associated with outlet to device connection because Wu
does not contemplate outlets. App. Br. 22. Further, Appellant argues that
Wu does not teach the claimed "identifying data" which is information such
as "address information" and the claimed "naming information" which
comprises "human interpretable/readable descriptive information pertaining
to the outlet, device and or outlet/device pair" and is received from the
service provider. App. Br. 22. Appellant concludes:
even per the Examiner's (incorrect) interpretation of the above-
discussed ambiguous language of Wu (pertaining to "unique IP
address 60, the logical name 62, or the device table 64"),
wherein the same information discovered locally is allegedly
able to be retrieved from some remote entity, such an
interpretation still cannot be considered as teaching the claimed
6
Appeal 2018-005165
Application 14/503,601
invention since this simply means a single type of information
is derived either locally or remotely. By contrast, the claimed
invention contemplates a first type of information derived
locally and a second type of information derived remotely.
App. Br. 23.
The Examiner has provided a comprehensive response to Appellant's
arguments on pages 5 through 7 of the Answer. The Examiner states that
Wu teaches that the connected devices are identified by a variety of data
such as device name, IP address, and logical name, which can come from
local or remote sources. Answer 5---6 ( citing Wu paras. 24--25). Further, the
Examiner acknowledges that Wu does not explicitly teach outlets to which
the devices are connected but finds that they necessarily exist to provide the
connections shown. Answer 6. As the claim recites the "identifying data" is
associated with the device to outlet connections, the information received
from the devices themselves (locally received) teaches the claimed
"identifying data." Answer 6. Further, the Examiner states:
As Figure 3 and paragraph [0025] of Wu clearly teach,
the table 64 has both identifying information and naming
information that is received locally and/or remotely. Id. The
examiner does not see why the three different pieces of
information in Wu can constitute both "identifying data" and
"naming information" as clearly they all qualify as both. Lastly,
the claim does not require any of the identifying or naming
information to be "human interpretable/readable", but even if
the claim did require this feature, any of the information in table
64 is clearly interpretable by a human, including the unique IP
address, which is easily distinguishable by a human through the
unique ordering of the numbers as an address.
Answer 6-7.
We have reviewed Appellant's arguments directed to the second issue,
the Examiner's response, the Examiner's findings and the teachings of Wu
7
Appeal 2018-005165
Application 14/503,601
and are not persuaded of error. As noted by the Examiner the claims do not
require the information to be human interpretable or readable as argued by
Appellant. We concur with the Examiner that Wu necessarily has outlets,
connections between the gateway and devices, in combination with the
teachings of Barnett some of these will be MoCA connections. Further, we
concur with the Examiner that Wu teaches the gateway obtains data such as
device name, IP address and logical name. Any of these pieces of data can
meet either the claimed "identifying data" or the "naming information" as
they are associated with the device to gateway connection. The claimed
difference between the "identifying data" and the "naming data" is whether
it is from the device (local) or from the service provided (remote). As the
Examiner has shown paragraph 25 of Wu teaches the gateway can obtain
data from either device or remote locations, thus suggesting the claim
limitations. We disagree with the Appellant's alternative explanation, on
page 22 of the Appeal Brief, that paragraph 25 of Wu is discussing a "sub-
net of a second location may be discovered by the gateway at a first
location." Accordingly, Appellant's arguments directed to the second issue
have not persuaded us of error in the Examiner's rejection of claim 1 and we
sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 1. As Appellant has not presented
separate arguments with respect to claim 2, 6 through 8, 11, 14, 15, and 19,
which are similarly rejected, we also sustain the Examiner's rejection of
claims 2, 6 through 8, 11, 14, 15, and 19.
Claim 3
With respect to claim 3, Appellant argues that the gateway 22 of Wu
does not meet the claimed local service access device utilized by service
personal as recited in claim 3. App. Br. 26.
8
Appeal 2018-005165
Application 14/503,601
The Examiner identifies that Wu teaches a technician can perform
troubleshooting through a connection to the gateway 22 via GUI item 20.
Answer 7 (citing Figures 2, 3, paras. 18, 43, 44, and 52).
We concur with the Examiner. Appellant's arguments have not
addressed the Examiner's findings with respect to the GUI item 20 or the
paragraphs, which discuss its use. We have reviewed the teachings in the
cited paragraphs and figures and agree with the Examiner that they teach a
"service access device utilized by service personal proximate a location of
said CE" as recited in claim 3. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's
rejection of claim 3.
Claims 4 and 12
With respect to claims 4 and 12, Appellant argues that the Examiner
has not shown that Wu teaches the identifying information is associated with
a logical pair of outlet and customer service device as recited in claim 4.
Specifically, Appellant argues that Wu teaches a complex device that
bridges networks and "is entirely unlike the claimed 'outlets' which operate
to connect the PHY layer of an access network ( e.g., a cable television RF
signal) to devices configured to communicate with this PHY layer. These
are entirely different concepts, and the use of a MoCA connection within the
context of the gateway 22 of Wu is nonsensical." App. Br. 27.
The Examiner's response relies upon the analysis discussed above
with respect to claim 1. Answer 7-8.
We are not persuaded of error by Appellant's arguments. Claim 4
states the identifying information is associated with a logical pair of outlet
and customer service device. As discussed above, Wu teaches several
identifiers associated with the outlet device connection and as such the data
9
Appeal 2018-005165
Application 14/503,601
is associated with the outlet to device pair. Further, Appellant's arguments
concerning the layer of the network is misplaced as the claim does not recite
a limitation defining any such association. Appellant's arguments regarding
the use of MoCA is not persuasive as discussed above with respect to claim
1. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of claims 4 and 12.
Claims 5 and 13
With respect to claims 5 and 13, Appellant argues that the Examiner
has not shown that Wu teaches "said naming information comprises one or
more of a name, a premises location and an identifier associated with an
outlet" as recited in claim 5. App. Br. 28. Further, Appellant states:
The residential gateway 22 of Wu uses names. The
invention here is not simply the use of names, but the of
'naming information' for an 'outlet' such as provided by
service equipment as well as 'identifying data' associated with
the outlet, wherein these two elements are used within the
context of identifying outlets or outlet/ device pairs within a
very low capability signal routing system.
App. Br. 28.
The Examiner in response states, "Regarding claims 5 and 13, there is
nothing in the [S]pecification or claims that would prevent the 'names' used
in Wu from teaching 'naming information' as claimed. Appellant has
provided no rationale why any of the names in Wu cannot teach 'naming
information."' Answer 8.
We concur with the Examiner and sustain the Examiner's rejection of
claims 5 and 13 .
Claims 9 and 10
10
Appeal 2018-005165
Application 14/503,601
With respect to claims 9 and 10, Appellant argues that claim 9 is
dependent upon claim 3 and as discussed with respect to claim 3, the
gateway, item 22, of Wu cannot be construed as the service access device.
App Br. 29.
We are not persuaded of error this argument. As discussed above
with respect to claim 3, the Examiner has shown that Wu's GUI, item 20 of
the gateway, item 22 performs the function of the claimed service access
device. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of claims 9 and 10
for the same reasons as discussed with respect to claim 3.
Claims 16 through 18
With respect to claims 16 through 18, Appellant argues the rejection
of these claims is in error for the reasons discussed with respect to claim 1.
App. Br. 29--30. Further, with respect to claim 16, Appellant argues that the
claim recites, "generating" a topological map and "to the extent that there is
a topology map utilized within the context of Beeco it is clearly a topology
map that already exists. As such, it is not being 'generated' as claimed."
App. Br. 30.
The Examiner provided a detailed explanation of how Beeco teaches a
topological map as claimed. Answer 8-9 (citing Beeco Fig. 4, paras. 33,
58---60, and 65-70).
We have reviewed the Examiner's rationale, findings and the
teachings of Beeco. We concur with the Examiner that Beeco teaches the
claimed topological map. Further, contrary to the Appellant's arguments,
we find that Beeco teaches generating the map, see, e.g., para. 66 of Beeco.
11
Appeal 2018-005165
Application 14/503,601
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 16 and claims 17
through 19 grouped with claim 16.
Claim 20
Appellant has not separately addressed the Examiner's rejection of
dependent claim 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Wu,
Barnett, and Absillis. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of
dependent claim 20 for the same reasons as discussed with respect to claim
1.
DECISION
The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1 through 20 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).
AFFIRMED
12