<?xml version="1.0" encoding="iso-8859-1" ?>
<rss version="2.0">
<channel>
<title>Ron D. Katznelson</title>
<copyright>Copyright (c) 2010  All rights reserved.</copyright>
<link>http://works.bepress.com/rkatznelson</link>
<description>Recent documents in Ron D. Katznelson</description>
<language>en-us</language>
<lastBuildDate>Thu, 18 Mar 2010 11:38:38 PDT</lastBuildDate>
<ttl>3600</ttl>


	
		
	







<item>
<title>Comments submitted to the US Patent Office on enhancing the quality of examination</title>
<link>http://works.bepress.com/rkatznelson/62</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://works.bepress.com/rkatznelson/62</guid>
<pubDate>Sat, 13 Mar 2010 21:12:45 PST</pubDate>
<description></description>

<author>Ron D. Katznelson</author>


<category>Public Comments in Rulemaking Proceedings</category>

</item>






<item>
<title>Patent Examination Policy and the Social Costs of Examiner Allowance and Rejection Errors</title>
<link>http://works.bepress.com/rkatznelson/61</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://works.bepress.com/rkatznelson/61</guid>
<pubDate>Sat, 06 Mar 2010 11:37:04 PST</pubDate>
<description></description>

<author>Ron D. Katznelson</author>


<category>Patent Law &amp; Policy - Panel Moderation &amp; Speeches</category>

</item>






<item>
<title>My 2010 wishes for the U.S. Patent Examiner</title>
<link>http://works.bepress.com/rkatznelson/60</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://works.bepress.com/rkatznelson/60</guid>
<pubDate>Fri, 08 Jan 2010 14:14:05 PST</pubDate>
<description></description>

<author>Ron D. Katznelson</author>


<category>Patent Law &amp; Policy - Articles</category>

</item>






<item>
<title>Comments submitted to the US Patent Office on deferred examination for patent applications</title>
<link>http://works.bepress.com/rkatznelson/59</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://works.bepress.com/rkatznelson/59</guid>
<pubDate>Fri, 05 Jun 2009 16:25:11 PDT</pubDate>
<description></description>

<author>Ron D. Katznelson</author>


<category>Public Comments in Rulemaking Proceedings</category>

</item>






<item>
<title>Draft Letter To Senators on Rewrite of Section 102</title>
<link>http://works.bepress.com/rkatznelson/58</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://works.bepress.com/rkatznelson/58</guid>
<pubDate>Tue, 07 Apr 2009 11:22:15 PDT</pubDate>
<description></description>

<author>Ron D. Katznelson</author>


<category>Patent Law &amp; Policy - Panel Moderation &amp; Speeches</category>

</item>






<item>
<title>Trends in USPTO Office Actions</title>
<link>http://works.bepress.com/rkatznelson/57</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://works.bepress.com/rkatznelson/57</guid>
<pubDate>Sat, 04 Apr 2009 01:19:16 PDT</pubDate>
<description></description>

<author>Ron D. Katznelson</author>


<category>Patent Law &amp; Policy - Panel Moderation &amp; Speeches</category>

</item>






<item>
<title>Patenting Strategies Under a Proposed First-To-File Patent System</title>
<link>http://works.bepress.com/rkatznelson/56</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://works.bepress.com/rkatznelson/56</guid>
<pubDate>Mon, 23 Mar 2009 14:57:52 PDT</pubDate>
<description></description>

<author>Ron D. Katznelson</author>


<category>Patent Law &amp; Policy - Panel Moderation &amp; Speeches</category>

</item>






<item>
<title>Comments submitted to OMB under the Paperwork Reduction Act on US Patent Office appeal rules</title>
<link>http://works.bepress.com/rkatznelson/55</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://works.bepress.com/rkatznelson/55</guid>
<pubDate>Wed, 24 Dec 2008 13:03:18 PST</pubDate>
<description></description>

<author>Ron D. Katznelson</author>


<category>Public Comments in Rulemaking Proceedings</category>

</item>






<item>
<title>The Perfect Storm of Patent Reform?</title>
<link>http://works.bepress.com/rkatznelson/54</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://works.bepress.com/rkatznelson/54</guid>
<pubDate>Mon, 03 Nov 2008 12:46:58 PST</pubDate>
<description></description>

<author>Ron D. Katznelson</author>


<category>Patent Law &amp; Policy - Panel Moderation &amp; Speeches</category>

</item>






<item>
<title>Ex Parte Letter in FCC Notice Of Proposed Rules on Consumer Electronics Compatibility</title>
<link>http://works.bepress.com/rkatznelson/53</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://works.bepress.com/rkatznelson/53</guid>
<pubDate>Wed, 03 Sep 2008 18:15:22 PDT</pubDate>
<description></description>

<author>Ron D. Katznelson</author>


<category>Public Comments in Rulemaking Proceedings</category>

</item>






<item>
<title>Supplemental Reply Comments to FCC Notice Of Inquiry on Consumer Electronics Compatibility Rules</title>
<link>http://works.bepress.com/rkatznelson/52</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://works.bepress.com/rkatznelson/52</guid>
<pubDate>Wed, 03 Sep 2008 18:09:37 PDT</pubDate>
<description></description>

<author>Ron D. Katznelson</author>


<category>Public Comments in Rulemaking Proceedings</category>

</item>






<item>
<title>Reply Comments to FCC Notice Of Proposed Rules on Consumer Electronics Compatibility</title>
<link>http://works.bepress.com/rkatznelson/51</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://works.bepress.com/rkatznelson/51</guid>
<pubDate>Wed, 03 Sep 2008 18:03:50 PDT</pubDate>
<description></description>

<author>Ron D. Katznelson</author>


<category>Public Comments in Rulemaking Proceedings</category>

</item>






<item>
<title>Comments submitted to FCC Notice Of Proposed Rules on Consumer Electronics Compatibility</title>
<link>http://works.bepress.com/rkatznelson/50</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://works.bepress.com/rkatznelson/50</guid>
<pubDate>Wed, 03 Sep 2008 17:46:36 PDT</pubDate>
<description></description>

<author>Ron D. Katznelson</author>


<category>Public Comments in Rulemaking Proceedings</category>

</item>






<item>
<title>Reply Comments to FCC Notice Of Inquiry on Consumer Electronics Compatibility Rules</title>
<link>http://works.bepress.com/rkatznelson/49</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://works.bepress.com/rkatznelson/49</guid>
<pubDate>Wed, 03 Sep 2008 17:37:06 PDT</pubDate>
<description></description>

<author>Ron D. Katznelson</author>


<category>Public Comments in Rulemaking Proceedings</category>

</item>






<item>
<title>Comments submitted to FCC Notice Of Inquiry on Consumer Electronics Compatibility Rules</title>
<link>http://works.bepress.com/rkatznelson/48</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://works.bepress.com/rkatznelson/48</guid>
<pubDate>Wed, 03 Sep 2008 17:25:09 PDT</pubDate>
<description></description>

<author>Ron D. Katznelson</author>


<category>Public Comments in Rulemaking Proceedings</category>

</item>






<item>
<title>CATV Modulator Return Loss Effects On Headend Combining Isolation</title>
<link>http://works.bepress.com/rkatznelson/47</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://works.bepress.com/rkatznelson/47</guid>
<pubDate>Wed, 03 Sep 2008 13:50:10 PDT</pubDate>
<description>This note addresses the impact of broadband return loss of frequency agile modulators when combined through headend combining networks.  In particular, the effect of less-than-ideal output return loss values are examined and it is shown that even under the worst case conditions, a broadband return loss of 10 dB produces only small reductions in isolation that still permit cable operators to meet their headend combining specifications.</description>

<author>Ron D. Katznelson</author>


<category>Standards Setting Organizations - Comments and Submissions</category>

</item>






<item>
<title>A Case For Including Harmonic Distortion Components in DOCSIS&apos; RF Specifications For Non Aggregating Spurious Components</title>
<link>http://works.bepress.com/rkatznelson/46</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://works.bepress.com/rkatznelson/46</guid>
<pubDate>Wed, 03 Sep 2008 13:19:40 PDT</pubDate>
<description>This note is submitted in support of a change in DOCSIS specifications for spurious performance. It shows that the impact of a proposed change is negligible and that the advantages far outweigh the perceived disadvantages of adopting such a change.</description>

<author>Ron D. Katznelson</author>


<category>Standards Setting Organizations - Comments and Submissions</category>

</item>






<item>
<title>The Case Against A Proposed Relaxation Of Out-Of-Band Noise And Spurious Specifications For DOCSIS Edge-QAM RF Devices</title>
<link>http://works.bepress.com/rkatznelson/45</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://works.bepress.com/rkatznelson/45</guid>
<pubDate>Wed, 03 Sep 2008 12:43:24 PDT</pubDate>
<description>This submission supported Broadband Innovations' (BI)  opposition to  relaxing the Out-of-Band Noise and Spurious specifications in QAM downstream transmission of Edge-QAM ("EQAM") devices. The specifications relaxation was proposed by a consortium of equipment vendors who called it the Joint Proposal for Self-Aggregate noise and spurious ("JPSA").  This note explains why the adoption of the JPSA would strip CATV systems from having sufficient operational noise and interference margins.  Post submission note:  Despite the overwhelming majority of the Working Group's acceptance and recommendation of the JPSA, CableLabs' Technical Board voted to accept BI's proposal and to reject the JPSA.</description>

<author>Ron D. Katznelson</author>


<category>Standards Setting Organizations - Comments and Submissions</category>

</item>






<item>
<title>Comments On A Proposed Change For EuroDOCSIS Specifications</title>
<link>http://works.bepress.com/rkatznelson/44</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://works.bepress.com/rkatznelson/44</guid>
<pubDate>Wed, 03 Sep 2008 12:04:54 PDT</pubDate>
<description>This submission provides support and explanations to the recommendation that specifications adopted for European applications of CableLabs'® Downstream RF Interface specifications ("DRFI") should be maintained in accordance with the existing North American DRFI.  It contains responses to a proposed changes offered by European proponents.  This note addresses the in-channel (Active Output Channel) return loss requirements and the 'Other Channels' spurious and noise requirements.</description>

<author>Ron D. Katznelson</author>


<category>Standards Setting Organizations - Comments and Submissions</category>

</item>






<item>
<title>Digital Broadband Descrambling Technology - A Compatible Access Control Solution To The Ever-Growing Consumer Electronics Interface Problem</title>
<link>http://works.bepress.com/rkatznelson/43</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://works.bepress.com/rkatznelson/43</guid>
<pubDate>Fri, 29 Aug 2008 15:24:07 PDT</pubDate>
<description>Digital Broadband Descrambling (&quot;DBD&quot;) is a newly developed digital technology for simultaneous on-channel processing of a large number of TV signals. It utilizes advanced Digital Signal Processing (&quot;DSP&quot;) methods for effecting low cost broadband access control signal security compatible with most addressable converters in use today.  It provides economically viable option for cable system operators to provide their subscribers with a truly &quot;subscriber friendly&quot; cable service while distributing scrambled video signals on the cable plant and avoiding the need for set-top descramblers.Unlike existing &quot;single-channel-at-a-time&quot; descrambling technologies, the DBD technology simultaneously descrambles and provides all authorized channels in the clear by means of broadband selective coherent injection at RF.  It enables subscribers to enjoy all the features of their cable ready TVs and VCRs in a whole-house service, including built-in VCR programming functions, remote controls, watching and recording from different scrambled channels simultaneously or consecutively, and viewing multiple channels at once (picture-in-picture). Furthermore, the DBD devices pass into the home all other unprocessed channels including digital compression signals, thereby allowing compatibility with future digital transmission.</description>

<author>Ron D. Katznelson</author>


<category>Electrical Engineering - Articles</category>

</item>





</channel>
</rss>
