BPAI Finds Disputed Claims Did Not Place Any Limitations on Scope of Specific Claim Terms

Ex parte Buabbud (BPAI Oct. 9, 2009)

Last Friday, the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences ("BPAI"), in an opinion by Administrative Patent Judge Dang, affirmed a rejection of claims relating to a communication system for transmitting video signals to a subscriber using optical fibers, for providing bi-directional telephone services for a subscriber using optical fibers, and for providing high-speed data services to a subscriber via a cable modem using optical fibers.

At issue on appeal was whether the examiner was correct in concluding a combination of prior art references disclosed "a high bandwidth bi-directional communication path between the CMTS and a public network" and "a high bandwidth bi-directional communication path … between the optical interface unit and the plain old telephone service (POTS) system."  Issues of claim construction concerned the terms "high bandwidth" and "plain old telephone service (POTS) system."

Regarding "high bandwidth", the BPAI found that the patent claims "simply [did] not place any limitation on what 'high bandwidth' means, includes, or represents."  Therefore, the BPAI did "not confine [the claims] to a path having a particular range of bandwidth."

Regarding "plain old telephone service (POTS) system", the BPAI found that, despite the appellant's arguments that the prior art disclosed using IP telephony services and not a POTS system, the claims "simply do[] not place any limitation on what 'plain old telephone service (POTS)" means, includes, or represents."  Therefore, the BPAI did "not confine the meaning of 'plain old telephone service (POTS)' to exclude any particular telephone service."

Ultimately, the BPAI affirmed the claim rejections.

If you have a comment or would like to see a particular topic discussed on this site, please e-mail grayonclaims@gmail.com.