Ex Parte Pal

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jan 13, 2017

13732148 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 13, 2017)

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.
13/732,148 12/31/2012 Rajiv Singh Cullen Pal P2012-05-18 (290110.552) 5513
70336 7590 01/13/2017
Seed IP Law Group LLP/EchoStar (290110)
701 FIFTH AVENUE
SUITE 5400
SEATTLE, WA 98104
EXAMINER
GEE, ALEXANDER
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2425
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
01/13/2017 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 RAJIV SINGH CULLEN PAL
Appeal 2016-000742
Application 13/732,148
Technology Center 2400
Before JOHN A. EVANS, LARRY J. HUME, and
STEVEN M. AMUNDSON, Administrative Patent Judges.
EVANS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant1 seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the
Examiner’s final rejection of Claims 1—5 and 9—18. App. Br. 2. Claims 6—8
are cancelled. Final Act. 2. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.2
1 The Appeal Brief identifies EchoStar Technologies L.L.C., as the real
party in interest. App. Br. 1.
2 Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellant and the Examiner, we
refer to the Appeal Brief (filed April 2, 2015, “Br.”), the Reply Brief (filed
October 13, 2015, “Reply Br.”), the Examiner’s Answer (mailed
Appeal 2016-000742
Application 13/732,148
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The disclosed and claimed inventions relate to a satellite dish
assembly and a set-top box utilized to provide an internet wireless hotspot.
See Abstract.
Claims 1, 9, and 14 are independent.* * 3 An understanding of the
invention can be derived from a reading of exemplary Claim 1, which is
reproduced below with some formatting and emphases added to contested
limitations:
1. A method comprising:
receiving, in a first satellite dish assembly, media content
from a satellite transponder;
providing the media content from the satellite dish
assembly to a first television receiver;
connecting the first television receiver to an internet
service provider;
connecting the first satellite dish assembly to the internet
service provider through the first television receiver;
transmitting, from the first satellite dish assembly, a first
wireless internet network signal;
August 12, 2015, “Ans.”), the Final Action (mailed October 27, 2014, “Final
Act.”), and the Specification (filed December 31, 2012, “Spec.”) for their
respective details.
3 Appellant contends the Examiner has not indicated whether the
Amendment after Final, filed December 22, 2014 was entered. App. Br. 2.
Our review of the Record fails to find such indication. The present appeal
reviews the claims as they existed prior to the Amendment.
2
Appeal 2016-000742
Application 13/732,148
connecting a second satellite dish assembly to the
internet service provider through a second television receiver,
transmitting, from the second satellite dish assembly, a
second wireless internet network signal',
when a mobile electronic device is in range of the first
and second wireless network signals, determining whether the
first or the second satellite dish assembly has greater
bandwidth;
if the first satellite dish assembly has greater bandwidth,
connecting the mobile electronic device to the internet service
provider through the first television receiver by establishing a
wireless network connection with the first satellite dish
assembly; and
if the second satellite dish assembly has greater
bandwidth, connecting the mobile electronic device to the
internet service provider through the second television receiver
by establishing a wireless network connection with the second
satellite dish assembly.
References and Rejections
The Examiner relies upon the prior art as evidence as follows:
Perlman US 7,493,078 B2 Feb. 17, 2009
Zellner et al. US 2009/0288122 Al Nov. 19, 2009
Lor et al. US 2010/0040016 Al Feb. 18, 2010
Russell et al. US 2010/0058396 Al Mar. 4, 2010
Slotznick US 7,856,204 B2 Dec. 21,2010
Parker et al. US 2010/0333131 Al Dec. 30, 2010
Vare et al. US 2013/0121229 Al Filed Nov. 16, 2011
3
Appeal 2016-000742
Application 13/732,148
1. Claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 9—11, 14, and 18 stand rejected under pre-AIA 35
U.S.C. 103(a) as obvious over Zellner, Perlman, Vare, and Lor. Final
Act. 3-18.
2. Claim 3 stands rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as obvious
over Zellner, Perlman, Vare, Lor, and Slotznick. Final Act. 19.
3. Claims 12, 13, 15, and 16 stand rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C.
103(a) as obvious over Zellner, Perlman, Vare, Lor, and Parker. Final
Act. 19-23.
4. Claim 17 stands rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as obvious
over Zellner, Perlman, Vare, Lor, and Russell. Final Act. 23.
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the rejections of Claims 1—5 and 9—18 in light of
Appellant’s arguments that the Examiner erred. We have considered in this
decision only those arguments Appellant actually raised in the Briefs. Any
other arguments which Appellant could have made but chose not to make in
the Briefs are deemed to be waived. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv). We
are not persuaded that Appellant identifies reversible error. Upon
consideration of the arguments presented in the Appeal Brief and Reply
Brief, we agree with the Examiner that all the pending claims are
unpatentable over the cited combinations of references.
4
Appeal 2016-000742
Application 13/732,148
Claims 1-5 and 9-18: Obviousness over Zellner, Perlman,
Vare, Lor, Slotznick, Parker, and Russell
Appellant argues all claims as a group and specifically argues
Claim 1. App. Br. 9. Appellant agrees with the Examiner that Zellner and
Perlman fail to teach “connecting a second satellite dish assembly to the
internet service provider through a second television receiver; transmitting,
from the second satellite dish assembly, a second wireless internet network
signal,” as recited in Claim 1. Id. at 10. Appellant argues Vare also fails to
teach these limitations. Id.
The Examiner finds Zellner teaches the underlying invention of
connecting satellite dish assemblies to the internet through television
receivers connected to the internet service providers (ISP) for multiple
subscribers. Ans. 25. The Examiner finds Zellner teaches several examples
of subscriber devices, one of which is analogous to the claimed satellite dish
assembly. Id. at 26. The Examiner finds Vare teaches multiple satellite dish
assemblies may be interlinked to transmit internetworked communication
signals to multiple devices. Id.
Appellant’s Reply restates the argument of the Appeal Brief which
contends Vare discloses a hybrid satellite/terrestrial network having a
plurality of terrestrial cells and satellite coverage areas. Reply Br. 2.
Appellant argues Vare is deficient because Vare doesn’t teach the
connection of a specific second satellite dish assembly to an Internet service
provider (ISP), much less through a specific second television receiver. Id.
5
Appeal 2016-000742
Application 13/732,148
Moreover, Appellant argues Vare doesn’t teach whether the satellite network
is connected to an ISP. Id. We do not consider Appellant’s arguments
persuasive because the Examiner cites Zellner, not Vare, for these teachings.
“[0]ne cannot show non-obviousness by attacking references individually
where . . . the rejections are based on combinations of references.” In re
Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 426 (CCPA 1981).
Therefore, based upon the findings above, on this record, we are not
persuaded of error in the Examiner's reliance on the combined teachings and
suggestions of the cited prior art combination to teach or suggest the
disputed limitations of claim 1, nor do we find error in the Examiner's
resulting legal conclusion of obviousness. Therefore, we sustain the
Examiner's obviousness rejections of claim 1, and claims 2—5 and 9-15
which fall therewith.
Claim 5: Obviousness over Zellner, Perlman, Vare, and Lor
Appellant further separately argues the Claim 5 limitation:
“establishing a second wireless network connection between the first
satellite dish assembly and the second satellite dish assembly.” App. Br. 13.
Appellant contends Vare does not specifically illustrate “a communication
network, that may include multiple networks that are interlinked such as a
network of satellite dishes.” Id.
The Examiner finds Vare teaches an interlinked network which may
be applied to the teachings of Zellner and Perlman, which references teach
the disputed features. Ans. 27.
6
Appeal 2016-000742
Application 13/732,148
Appellant replies Claim 5 specifies that the satellite dish networks
must be interlinked in a specific manner. Reply Br. 7.
We disagree. Claim 5 recites the “method of claim 1 comprising
establishing a second wireless network connection between the first satellite
dish assembly and the second satellite dish assembly.” We fail to discern
within Claim 5 any limitation imposing a “specific manner” of interlinkage
between dish networks.
Therefore, based upon the findings above, on this record, we are not
persuaded of error in the Examiner's reliance on the combined teachings and
suggestions of the cited prior art combination to teach or suggest the
disputed limitation of claim 5, nor do we find error in the Examiner's
resulting legal conclusion of obviousness. Therefore, we sustain the
Examiner’s obviousness rejection of claim 5.
DECISION
We AFFIRM the rejection of Claims 1—5 and 9—18 under 35 U.S.C.
§103.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l)(iv). See 37
C.F.R. § 41.50(f).
AFFIRMED
7