Ex Parte Chan et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardNov 25, 201311687052 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 25, 2013) Copy Citation UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________________ Ex parte ALLEN CHAN, WILSON WONG, and SERGEY SHUMARAYEV ____________________ Appeal 2011-005944 Application 11/687,052 Technology Center 2600 ____________________ Before JEAN R. HOMERE, JUSTIN BUSCH, and IRVIN E. BRANCH, Administrative Patent Judges. BRANCH, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2011-005944 Application 11/687,052 2 STATEMENT OF CASE Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s Final Rejection of claims 1–10 and 12–16. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). Claims 17–19 are allowed and claim 11 is objected to as depending from a rejected base claim, but is indicated to be otherwise allowable. We affirm. Illustrative Claim Appellants’ disclosure relates to automatic rate negotiation logic for a high speed serial interface in a programmable logic device. Abstract. Claim 1, reproduced below with the disputed limitation italicized, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 1. In a programmable logic device having a serial interface channel, including a dedicated serial interface that is operable under a plurality of protocols, operates at a clock rate, and has at least two data rate modes based on a relationship between a data rate and said clock rate, a method for determining a data rate mode, said method comprising: monitoring of said channel by said serial interface for occurrence of single-bit transitions; and on detection by said serial interface of a predetermined plural number of said single-bit transitions within a predetermined duration, concluding by said serial interface, without regard to which of said plurality of protocols said serial interface is operating under, that said data rate mode is one wherein said data rate is substantially a multiple of said clock rate. Rejections The Examiner made the following rejections: Appeal 2011-005944 Application 11/687,052 3 Claims 1–8 and 12 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Applicant Admitted Prior Art (Spec., ¶¶ 1–4) (hereinafter “AAPA”) and Casper (US 5,838,749) (Ans. 3–9); Claims 9 and 10 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over AAPA, Casper, and Friedman (US 2004/0114702 A1) (Ans. 9–10); and Claims 13–16 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over AAPA, Casper, and Langhammer (US 2005/0257030 A1) (Ans. 10–11). Issue We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellants’ arguments in the Appeal Brief (“App. Br.” filed Oct. 12, 2010) and Reply Brief (“Reply Br.” filed Jan. 4, 2011). App. Br. 9–12; Reply Br. 3–6. We refer to the Briefs and the Answer (“Ans.” mailed Nov. 8, 2010) for the respective positions of Appellants and the Examiner. Appellants’ arguments raise the issue of whether AAPA and Casper teach or suggest a dedicated serial interface, operable under a plurality of protocols, determining a data rate mode without regard to which of the plurality of protocols the serial interface is operating under. ANALYSIS Claim 1 over AAPA and Casper The Examiner finds that AAPA discloses all elements of claim 1, except that AAPA does not disclose “monitoring for occurrence of single-bit transitions and on detection of a plural number of the single-bit transitions within a predetermined duration, concluding without regard to which protocol is operating the data rate.” Ans. 4. The Examiner finds that Casper discloses the cited missing limitation in the Abstract, Figures 10–12, and Appeal 2011-005944 Application 11/687,052 4 claims 4, 12, 19, 27, 42, and 50, finding that because Casper’s technique of counting the single-bit transitions is applicable to any data pattern, it is independent of the data protocol that is operating. Id. Appellants argue that in AAPA, “the rate negotiation circuitry either was configured in the programmable portion of a programmable logic device, or was in an interface circuit that was dedicated to a particular protocol.” App. Br. 11. Appellants argue that Appellants’ claims exclude both of these possibilities. Id. In response, the Examiner cites Casper’s Summary of the Invention for recovering a clock signal embedded in a transported digital data stream without prior knowledge of the data pattern. Ans. 14 (citing Casper, col. 1, l. 66–col. 2, l. 10). The Examiner finds that Casper discloses that the clock signal recovery is done independently of the data pattern and therefore independently of the protocol. Id. Appellants argue that the Examiner has erred in finding that Casper discloses determination of the data rate mode independently of the protocol based on single-bit transitions because Casper does not use single-bit transitions to determine a data rate mode. Reply Br. 6. Instead, Appellants argue, Casper uses single-bit transitions to determine a clock rate. Id. Appellants dispute the Examiner’s finding that by determining a clock rate Casper discloses determination of a data rate mode because “Casper does not teach that, or how, one can determine from the determined clock rate, without knowing more, whether the data rate mode is full-rate or half-rate. . . .” Id. We are not persuaded by Appellants’ arguments that the Examiner has erred. Appellants’ argument that Appellants’ claims prohibit both possibilities disclosed by AAPA (i.e., the rate negotiation circuitry Appeal 2011-005944 Application 11/687,052 5 configured in either: [a] programmable portion of a programmable logic device; or [b] an interface circuit dedicated to a particular protocol) (App. Br. 11 (referring to AAPA at Spec. ¶ 4)) is unpersuasive of error because it does not consider that Casper’s interface circuit is not dedicated to a particular protocol. One cannot show obviousness by attacking references individually when a rejection is based on a combination of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 426 (CCPA 1981). The Examiner cites Casper’s bit rate estimator (ref. no 81, figs. 10 and 11) for counting single-bit transitions to thereby determine data rate without regard to protocol. Ans. 4. Because Casper does not require prior knowledge of protocol, Casper at least suggests that the bit rate estimator is not dedicated to a particular protocol. Accordingly, because Appellants’ argument does not consider the collective teachings of the references, Appellants’ argument amounts to an unpersuasive attack on AAPA alone. Nor are we persuaded of error based on Appellants’ argument that Casper does not teach determining whether the data rate mode is full-rate or half-rate. Reply Br. 6. Because claim 1 does not require determining a specific data rate mode, Appellants’ argument is not commensurate with the claim scope. Appellants have not persuaded us that the Examiner erred in finding that by determining a clock rate, Casper discloses determining a data rate mode. Therefore, Appellants’ arguments have not persuaded us that the Examiner erred in finding that the combination of AAPA and Casper teaches or suggests a dedicated serial interface, operable under a plurality of protocols, determining a data rate mode without regard to which of the plurality of protocols the serial interface is operating under. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1. We also sustain the Appeal 2011-005944 Application 11/687,052 6 Examiner’s rejection of independent claim 7, which includes limitations similar to claim 1, and dependent claims 2–6, 8–10, and 12–16, which Appellants argue are patentable as depending from claims 1 and 7. CONCLUSIONS On the record before us, we conclude that: The Examiner has not erred in rejecting claims 1–8 and 12 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over AAPA and Casper; The Examiner has not erred in rejecting claims 9 and 10 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over AAPA, Casper, and Friedman; and The Examiner has not erred in rejecting claims 13–16 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over AAPA, Casper, and Langhammer. DECISION For the above reasons, the Examiner’s rejections of claims 1–10 and 12–16 are 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). AFFIRMED tj Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation