Ex Parte Pugel et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardNov 30, 2012

10548926 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 30, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE _____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD _____________ Ex parte MICHAEL ANTHONY PUGEL, DOUGLAS EDWARD LANKFORD, JOHN JOSEPH CURTIS III, KEITH REYNOLDS WEHMEYER, MIKE ARTHUR DERRENBERGER, TERRY WAYNE LOCKRIDGE, and ANDREW ERIC BOWYER ____________________ Appeal 2010-007484 Application 10/548,926 Technology Center 2400 ____________________ Before ERIC B. CHEN, JOHNNY A. KUMAR, and TREVOR M. JEFFERSON, Administrative Patent Judges. JEFFERSON, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2010-007484 Application 10/548,926 2 STATEMENT OF CASE Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a non-final rejection of claims 1-27, all the claims pending in the application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. The claims are directed to apparatus and method for storing content, such as audio, video and/or data, and for distributing such content by down- converting to vacant channels of existing coaxial cable infrastructure. Spec. 1:10-14. Claim 1, reproduced below with disputed limitation in italics, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 1. A server apparatus comprising: processing means for receiving broadcast program signals from a broadcast source and processing said received signals to generate broadcast program digital data; memory means for recording said broadcast program digital data; control means for enabling retrieval of said digital data from said memory means, wherein said control means further detects an available frequency band on a transmission medium; encoding means for encoding said retrieved digital data to generate encoded digital signals; digital-to-analog converting means for converting said encoded digital signals to analog signals; and modulating means for modulating said analog signals to generate processed analog signals, wherein said processed analog signals are provided to a client device via said transmission medium connecting said server apparatus and said client device, and wherein said available frequency band is used to provide said processed analog signals to said client device, thereby causing said transmission medium to be shared between said processed analog signals and cable broadcast signals distributed over said transmission medium. Appeal 2010-007484 Application 10/548,926 3 REJECTIONS The Examiner made the following rejections: Claims 1-5, 7-14, 16-23, and 25-27 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Laksono (US 7,200,855 B2, Apr. 3, 2007) and Williams (US 6,134,419, Oct. 17, 2000). Ans. 4-9. Claims 6, 15, and 24 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Laksono, Williams and Ansari (US 7,260,825 B2, Aug. 21, 2007). Ans. 10. Appellants make separate arguments for independent claim 1 and a related argument for independent claims 10 and 19. Appellants make no separate arguments for dependent claims 2-9, 11-18 and 20-27. We address Appellants’ arguments for claims 1, 10 and 19. ISSUES Did the Examiner err in combining the teachings of Laksono and Williams? Did the Examiner err in finding that the combination of Williams and Laksono teaches or suggests a “control means [that] further detects an available frequency band on a transmission medium,” as recited in claim 1, “detecting an available frequency band on a transmission medium,” as recited in claim 10 or a “controller [that] further detects an available frequency band on a transmission medium,” as recited in claim 19? ANALYSIS Appellants contend that Laksono fails to teach a “control means for enabling retrieval of said digital data from said memory means, wherein said control means further detects an available frequency band on a transmission Appeal 2010-007484 Application 10/548,926 4 medium” as recited in claim 1. Br. 11. Appellants argue that because “Laksono multiplexes a plurality of programs onto a single channel” (Laksono col. 5, ll. 46-48), using a control means which detects an available frequency band on a transmission medium in the method Laksono teaches “would be useless.” Id. Because of this purported uselessness, Appellants conclude that the combination of Laksono with Williams is not proper. Id. In response, the Examiner articulates that Laksono does not teach multiplexing, but instead teaches “modulat[ing] using [various analog and digital methods] to create a stream of channel data for transmission to the various client devices ([Laskono], Col. 37, lines 1-5).” Ans. 12. The Examiner asserts that Laksono in combination with Williams modulates signals for distribution onto available frequency bands. Id We are not persuaded by Appellants’ arguments that the Examiner erred. We agree with the Examiner that “Laksono teaches a multimedia server that receives broadcast television signals, local video signals, etc. and provides the video to a plurality of client devices.” Ans. 11. We also find that Williams “teaches a transmodulator device that receives analog and digital broadcast signals from different sources and is able to transmodulate the signals onto an available unused frequency band for distribution to a plurality of client devices.” Ans. 11; see also Williams, col. 10, ll. 1-34. Contrary to Appellants’ argument that the combination of Laksono and Williams would prove “useless,” the Examiner has provided a rational basis for the combination of Laksono and Williams, namely “to improve the multimedia server and media distribution system of Laksono for the purpose of using the available frequency spectra more efficiently in a multiple client device environment (Williams [c]ol. 6, ll. 44-51).” Ans. 12. The citation of Ansari in combination with Laksono and Williams for dependent claims 6, Appeal 2010-007484 Application 10/548,926 5 15 and 24, Ans. 10, does not undermine the Examiner’s support for the combination of Laksono and Williams. Ans. 12. Both Williams and Laksono employ modulation techniques for distribution of signals, while Williams teaches the “transmodulating video signals onto available carrier frequencies.” Ans. 12. Accordingly, the Examiner did not err in combining Laksono and Williams in the rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C § 103(a). Finally, we are also not persuaded by Appellants’ argument that Laksono fails to teach or suggest “detecting an available frequency band on a transmission medium” as recited in claim 10, Ans. 11, or “a controller operative … detect[] an available frequency band on a transmission medium” as recited in claim 19, Ans. 12. One cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Merck & Co., Inc., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Indeed, the Examiner cited Williams, not Laksono, for teaching modulating signals onto a detected unused frequency. Ans. 12 (discussing Williams, col. 6, ll. 52-67). Based on the foregoing, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of independent claims 1, 10 and 19 under 35 U.S.C § 103(a). We also sustain the Examiner’s rejection of the dependent claims 2-9, 11-18 and 20-27. DECISION For the above reasons, the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-27 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). Appeal 2010-007484 Application 10/548,926 6 AFFIRMED tj