Ex Parte Hofmann et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 16, 2014

12551590 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 16, 2014)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte RICHARD GERARD HOFMANN and
MARK MICHAEL SCHAFFER
____________

Appeal 2012-006094
Application 12/551,5901
Technology Center 2100
____________

Before STEPHEN C. SIU, BRETT C. MARTIN, and
JENNIFER L. McKEOWN, Administrative Patent Judges.

McKEOWN, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s final
rejection of claims 1, 2, 5, 7, 8, and 13. App. Br. 3. Claims 3, 4, 6, 14, and
27–32 are objected to and claims 9–12, 15–26, 33, 34, and 36–47 are
allowed. App. Br. 3. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants’ invention is directed to a method of communicating over
a bus including concurrently transmitting a first and second data types over

1 The real party in interest is QUALCOMM Incorporated.
Appeal 2012-006094
Application 12/551,590

2
first and second sub-channels of the transmit channel of a bus while also
receiving data over a receive channel of the bus. See Abstract.
Claim 1 is illustrative and is reproduced below:
1. A method of communicating over a bus, the method
comprising:
transmitting a first data type for one of a read or write
operation, over a first sub-channel of a transmit channel of the
bus while concurrently transmitting, for said one of a read or
write operation, a second data type over a second sub-channel
of the transmit channel of the bus; and
receiving data over a receive channel of the bus while
transmitting the first data type or the second data type over the
transmit channel.

THE REJECTION
The Examiner rejected claims 1, 2, 5, 7, 8, and 13 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) as anticipated by Revilla (US 5,925,118; July 20, 1999). Ans. 4–5.

CONTENTIONS
The Examiner here finds that Revilla discloses each limitation of
claim 1. Ans. 4. On the other hand, the Appellants contend that the
Examiner improperly construed the terms “bus” and “sub-channel.”
App. Br. 7–14.
According to Appellants, lines that control a bus or indicate the status
of a bus, such as Revilla’s transfer qualifiers, are outside the scope of the
claimed bus. App. Br. 7–10. Additionally, Appellants maintain that the
claimed sub-channels must be independently controlled and this feature is
absent from Revilla. App. Br. 10–14.

Appeal 2012-006094
Application 12/551,590

3
ISSUES
Did the Examiner err in finding that Revilla discloses:
transmitting a first data type for one of a read or write operation,
over a first sub-channel of a transmit channel of the bus while
concurrently transmitting, for said one of a read or write
operation, a second data type over a second sub-channel of the
transmit channel of the bus[,]

as recited in claim 1?

ANALYSIS
Claims 1, 2, 5, 7, 8, and 13
Based on the record before us, we find that the Examiner did not err in
rejecting claim 1 as anticipated by Revilla. Further, we agree with the
Examiner’s findings and adopt them as our own.
Appellants here do not challenge the disclosures of Revilla, but
instead contend that the Examiner erred in construing the claim terms “bus”
and “sub-channel.” See App. Br. 7–14. Appellants in particular argue that
the claimed “bus” should be construed as “a path to carry data from one
component to another, and that the lines that control the busses, and indicate
the status of the busses, are outside of the ordinary usage of ‘bus.’”
App. Br. 9; see also App. Br 8 (noting that a skilled artisan would
understand that data on a bus is “for use by the receiving component (Fig. 3,
item 104) in, for example, performing the write or read task.”).
We disagree. As the Examiner explains,
It is well known in the art for a bus to transmit anyone or all
types of information that can be communicated between
components, including: data, addresses, and control
information. This is commonly accomplished by using
Appeal 2012-006094
Application 12/551,590

4
either/both “type” specific busses (such as an address bus,
control bus, data bus) or busses capable of transmitting various
“types” of information (such as multiplex busses).

Ans. 6. In other words, a skilled artisan would understand that a bus is not
limited to transmitting only a particular data type.
Moreover, Appellants reliance on the naming convention of the
Specification and Revilla is unwarranted. See App. Br. 8–9. The
Specification here expressly identifies that transfer qualifiers, such as
Revilla’s transfer qualifiers, are transmitted over the bus of the invention.
See e.g., Specification ¶¶28–30 (defining transfer qualifiers and identifying
that the transfer qualifiers are “broadcast on the transmit channel 108 [i.e.
the bus].”); ¶33(“The transfer tag may be included in the transfer qualifiers
broadcast on the transmit channel 108.”); ¶¶34–35 (identifying Tables 1 and
2 as an example of a bus protocol). We are therefore unpersuaded that the
data transmitted over the claimed bus would exclude Revilla’s transfer
qualifiers.
Equally unconvincing is Appellants’ argument that the claimed sub-
channel must be independently controllable. Appellants maintain that the
Specification defines that the claimed sub-channel must be capable of being
independently controlled. See App. Br. 10 (citing Spec. ¶46). The cited
“definition” though merely describes that the sub-channels may be
independently controlled. See Ans. 7; see also Specification ¶46 (“[t]he
term ‘sub-channel’ refers to a group of wires or conductors which may be
controlled independently of the other wires or conductors in the channel.”).
In other words, in some instances the sub-channels may be independently
controlled but it is not required.
Appeal 2012-006094
Application 12/551,590

5
Appellants also assert “the term ‘sub-channel’ is used in a consistent
manner throughout the Specification, namely a group of wires that can be
individually controlled and, therefore, this meaning controls the
interpretation of ‘sub-channel’ in the claims.” App. Br. 11. While we agree
with Appellants that the cited embodiment does include independently
controlled sub-channels, this description alone does not demonstrate a clear
intent to define the claimed sub-channels. See Thorner v. Sony Computer
Ent. Am. LLC, 669 F.3d 1362, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (“It is not enough for a
patentee to simply disclose a single embodiment or use a word in the same
manner in all embodiments, the patentee must clearly express an intent to
redefine the term.” (citations omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted)).
We are not persuaded then that Revilla fails to teach the claimed sub-
channels recited in claim 1. Appellants present this same argument
regarding independently controllable sub-channels for claim 13, which we
also find unpersuasive.
Therefore, we find that the Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 1
and 13, as well as dependent claims 2, 5, 7, and 8, not argued separately, as
anticipated by Revilla. Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of these
claims.

CONCLUSION
The Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 1, 2, 5, 7, 8, and 13.

DECISION
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1, 2, 5, 7, 8, and 13 is
affirmed.
Appeal 2012-006094
Application 12/551,590

6
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