Ex Parte PalDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardJan 13, 201713732148 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 13, 2017) Copy Citation 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 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation