Ex Parte Wasden et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardJul 18, 2014

11930390 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 18, 2014)

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. 11/930,390 10/31/2007 Mitchell B. Wasden PD-207103 9810 20991 7590 07/21/2014 THE DIRECTV GROUP, INC. PATENT DOCKET ADMINISTRATION CA / LA1 / A109 2230 E. IMPERIAL HIGHWAY EL SEGUNDO, CA 90245 EXAMINER BILODEAU, DAVID ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2648 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 07/21/2014 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 MITCHELL B. WASDEN, VISHAL ARYA, DANIEL M. MINER, DARREN M. ST. LAURENT, and DAVID T. BOLTZ ____________ Appeal 2012-002939 Application 11/930,390 Technology Center 2600 ____________ Before JOSEPH L. DIXON, ST. JOHN COURTENAY III, and CARLA M. KRIVAK, Administrative Patent Judges. KRIVAK, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of claims 1-25. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. Appeal 2012-002939 Application 11/930,390 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants’ claimed invention is directed to a method and system for receiving signals at a local collection facility and communicating between the local collection facility and the remote facility (Spec. ¶ [0001]). Independent claim 1, reproduced below, is representative of the subject matter on appeal. 1. A method comprising: receiving channel signals at a local collection facility; encoding the channel signals into respective IP signals; communicating the respective IP signals through an IP network from the local collection facility to a remote facility; controlling an antenna switch at the local collection facility to communicate a first channel signal of the channel signals to a monitoring receiver circuit module; generating a monitoring signal at the monitoring receiver circuit module; and communicating the monitoring signal to a remote facility through an IP network. REFERENCES and REJECTIONS The Examiner rejected claims 1-6, 8, 10-12, 14-16, 18, and 20-25 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based upon the teachings of Summers (US 2003/0217362 Al; Nov. 20, 2003), Blumenschein (US 2007/0261073 Al; Nov. 8, 2007), and Massey (US 2001/0026537 Al; Oct. 4, 2001). The Examiner rejected claims 7, 9, 13, 17, and 19 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based upon the teachings of Summers, Blumenschein, and Loner (US 2006/0064726 Al; Mar. 23, 2006). Appeal 2012-002939 Application 11/930,390 3 ANALYSIS Appellants contend the Examiner is incorrect in finding the combination of references does not disclose Appellants’ claimed invention (App. Br. 6). Particularly, Appellants assert Summers discloses a broadcast center that receives IP signals from various sources; that is Summers’ broadcast centers receive IP signals, rather than generating and transmitting IP signals as claimed (App. Br. 7-8). Further, Appellants contend “nowhere in Summers is it taught that the broadcast center and the uplink facility are connected by an internet backhaul” (App. Br. 8). Appellants’ arguments are not compelling. Upon consideration of the evidence on this record and each of Appellants’ contentions, we find the preponderance of evidence on this record supports the Examiner’s conclusions that the subject matter of Appellants’ claims is unpatentable over the combination of Summers, Blumenschein, and Massey. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejections of each of these claims for the reasons set forth in the Answer (Ans. 15-20). For emphasis only, we provide the following. We agree with the Examiner, in light of the broad claim language and lack of a specific definition identified by Appellants in Appellants’ Specification, Summers’ broadcast center is equivalent to Appellants’ local collection facility. Additionally, we agree Summers’ uplink facility is equivalent to Appellants’ remote collection facility, contrary to Appellants’ assertions. (Ans. 16-17; App. Br. 7-8). We also agree Summers discloses IP signals are generated by the broadcast center (local collection facility). Appellants’ contention that Summers does not teach the broadcast center and uplink facility are connected by an internet backhaul (App. Br. 8) is without Appeal 2012-002939 Application 11/930,390 4 merit as this feature is not claimed. Further, even if it were claimed, we agree with the Examiner that Massey discloses this feature (Ans. 17). As to Appellants’ statement Summers does not show controlling a switch as claimed, we disagree and adopt the Examiner’s findings as our own (Ans. 18). Thus, on this record, we are not persuaded the Examiner’s reading of the claims on the cited combination of references is overly broad, unreasonable, or inconsistent with the Specification. In light of the broad terms recited in the claims and the arguments presented, Appellants’ have failed to clearly distinguish their claimed invention over the prior art relied on by the Examiner. We therefore sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-6, 8, 10-12, 14-16, 18, and 20-25 over Summers, Blumenschein, and Massey. With respect to claims 7, 9, 13, 17, and 19, Appellants rely on the arguments and contentions set forth with respect to independent claims 1, 12, and 14 (App. Br. 18). Further, Appellants merely state Loner does not cure the deficiencies of Summers, Blumenschein, and Massey, without attorney argument or evidence (id.). Thus, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 7, 9, 13, 17, and 19. DECISION The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-25 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 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 2012-002939 Application 11/930,390 5 AFFIRMED dw