Ex Parte Dupuis et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardMay 31, 201714105332 (P.T.A.B. May. 31, 2017) Copy Citation 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. 14/105,332 12/13/2013 Timothy J. Dupuis 026-0229 6669 52219 7590 Zagorin Cave LLP (026) 11675 Jollyville Road Suite 100 AUSTIN, TX 78759 06/02/2017 EXAMINER PATEL, DHAVAL V ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2631 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 06/02/2017 ELECTRONIC 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. Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the following e-mail address(es): mzagorin @ atxiplaw.com docket279 @ atxiplaw.com US PTO @ dockettrak. com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte TIMOTHY J. DUPUIS, JEFFREY L. SONNTAG, MICHAEL J. MILLS, and RIAD WAHBY Appeal 2017-001731 Application 14/105,332 Technology Center 2600 Before JEFFREY S. SMITH, IRVIN E. BRANCH, and DAVID J. CUTITTAII, Administrative Patent Judges. BRANCH, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a rejection of claims 1—6, 8—12, 14, 15, 17, and 20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). Claims 7, 13, 16, 18, and 19 are indicated to be allowable. We affirm-in-part. Appeal 2017-001731 Application 14/105,332 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER The claims are directed to communicating across an isolation channel. Spec. 11001. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 1. An apparatus for communicating using an isolation channel, the apparatus comprising: a transmitter circuit comprising: a first terminal configured to communicate a first signal to the isolation channel, the first signal oscillating in response to a data signal having a first signal level and the first signal being constant in response to the data signal having a second signal level; and a second terminal configured to communicate a second signal to the isolation channel, the second signal oscillating in response to the data signal having the second signal level and the second signal being constant in response to the data signal having the first signal level. REFERENCES AND REJECTIONS Claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 9-12, and 15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over the combination of Sugawara (US 2008/0205564 Al; published Aug. 28, 2008) and Adam (US 7,688,869 B2; Mar. 30, 2010). Final Act. 9—13. Claims 3 and 17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over the combination of Sugawara, Adam, and Goswami (US 2014/0266373 Al; published Sept. 18, 2014). Final Act. 13—15. Claim 6 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over the combination of Sugawara, Adam, and Hasegawa (US 2008/0136383 Al; published June 12, 2008). Final Act. 15. 2 Appeal 2017-001731 Application 14/105,332 Claim 8 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over the combination of Sugawara, Adam, and Mueck (US 2013/0278438 Al; published Oct. 24, 2013). Final Act. 16. Claims 14 and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over the combination of Sugawara, Adam, and Kamath (US 2014/0169038 Al; published June 19, 2014). Final Act. 16-17. ANALYSIS Contentions Appellants argue claims 1, 2, 4, and 5 collectively on the basis that “the Office has provided no teaching or suggestion for coupling the output of first oscillator 101 and the output of second oscillator 102 of Sugawara ... to data output 334 and clock output 335 of Adam.” App. Br. 6. Appellants assert the Examiner’s proposed combination “is not a predictable use of the clock recovery apparatus of Sugawara according to its intended function of recovering a clock signal from a high bit rate data signal received over a high speed optical communication line.” Id. 6. Appellants present similar arguments for claim 15. Id. 6—8. Appellants argue the rejection of claim 6 on the basis that “Hasegawa fails to compensate for the shortcomings of Sugawara to render obvious the claimed invention.” Id. 9. Appellants argue claim 20 on the basis that “[t]he correction of DC offset taught by Kamath fails to render obvious that a recovered data signal is DC correct, as required by claim 20.” Id. 10. Appellants argue claim 14 on the same basis. Id. 11. 3 Appeal 2017-001731 Application 14/105,332 Analysis We have reviewed Appellants’ arguments (App. Br. 3—11; Reply Br. 2—6) alleging error in the Examiner’s rejections of claims 1, 2, 4—6, 14, 15, and 20 (Final Act. 9-13, 15, 16—17). We are unpersuaded of error for the reasons stated by the Examiner (Ans. 2—15). We sustain the rejections, adopting the Examiner’s findings and conclusion that claims 1, 2, 4—6, 14, 15, and 20 are unpatentable. For emphasis we note that Appellants do not persuasively rebut the Examiner’s finding regarding claims 1, 2, 4, 5, and 15 that, at the time of Appellants’ claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would be “motivated to perform the optical communications of the Sugawara with the isolation channel or Opto-isolators of Adams, as simple substitution technique of one known element to another known element” for the purpose of “provid[ing] high speed communication at high isolation between transmission and reception sides.” Final Act. 10; see id. 9—13. Arguments of counsel cannot take the place of factually supported objective evidence. See, e.g., In re Huang, 100 F.3d 135, 139-40 (Fed. Cir. 1996); In reDe Blauwe, 736 F.2d 699, 705 (Fed. Cir. 1984). Appellants do not provide sufficient persuasive argument or evidence to convince us of error in the Examiner’s findings and conclusion. We also sustain the Examiner’s rejections of claims 3, 8, and 17, which Appellants do not separately argue. We do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 9—12 because these claims depend from claim 13, which is indicated to be allowable. 4 Appeal 2017-001731 Application 14/105,332 DECISION We affirm the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1—6, 8, 14, 15, 17, and 20. We reverse the rejection of claims 9—12. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l)(iv). AFFIRMED-IN-PART 5 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation