Reexamination Control No. 90/005,742
Patent 5,253,341
1 subscriber station includes a keypad for sending data to the head end. Id. at col. 10, ll. 4-8.
2 These data identify the desired television program. Id. at col. 9, ll. l
3 The examiner contends that "[i]t would have been obvious . . . to modify Yurt et al. with
4 Gargini et al. to allow for sharing of high speed access among multiple users and other the [sic]
5 benefits expressly recited (col. 11, lines 9-17; col. 11, lines 44-55)." 3d Action at 87-88, para.
6 20; Final Action at 244, para. 20 . The cited lines explain that the concentrators (a) perform some
7 data processing in order to reduce the work load of the CPU at the head-end and reduce the
8 amount of data to be transmitted from the concentrators to the head end (col. 11, ll. 9-17) and
9 (b) reassemble the data for high speed transmission to the CPU at the head end. Id. at col. 11, ll.
10 44-55.
11 We agree with the examiner that it would have been obvious in order to obtain the afore-
12 mentioned benefits to implement the Yurt's cable television reception systems (e.g., 200a and
13 200b in Figs. 1e and 1f) as cable distribution systems of the type depicted in Figure 7 of Gargini,
14 including the concentrators, which relay a request for a specific television program (the recited
15 “query”) from the subscriber to the central station. Dr. Koopman's argument that column 3, lines
16 6-20 of Kandell (discussed supra) teach away from this proposed combination of Yurt and
17 Gargini (2d Koopman Decl. at 175, para. 373) is unconvincing because that passage in Kandell
18 discusses the use of concentrators with standard telephone lines rather than with coaxial cables
19 and also because that "teaching away" argument is unpersuasive even with respect to standard
20 telephone lines.
21 The rejection of claim 11 over Yurt in view of Gargini is therefore affirmed.
- 55 -
Page: Previous 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007