Ex Parte Karalar et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 30, 2016

13242580 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 30, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/242,580 09/23/2011
21906 7590 04/01/2016
TROP, PRUNER & HU, P,C
1616 S. VOSS ROAD, SUITE 750
HOUSTON, TX 77057-2631
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Tufan Karalar
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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
SIL.0172US (D-11-600-23) 9866
EXAMINER
0 NEILL, PATRICK
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2842
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
04/01/2016 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):
tphpto@tphm.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte TUF AN KARALAR and DAVID HUITSE SHEN
Appeal2014-002220
Application 13/242,580
Technology Center 2800
Before KAL YANK. DESHPANDE, DAVID M. KOHUT, and
JUSTIN T. ARBES, Administrative Patent Judges.
ARBES, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the final rejection of
claims 1-20, the only claims pending in the application on appeal. We have
jurisdiction over the appeal pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ). 1
We affirm-in-part.
1 Our decision will make reference to Appellants' Appeal Brief ("App. Br.,"
filed August 19, 2013) and Reply Brief ("Reply Br.," filed November 27,
2013), and the Examiner's Answer ("Ans.," mailed September 27, 2013) and
Final Office Action ("Final Act.," mailed March 8, 2013).
Appeal2014-002220
Application 13/242,580
The claims are directed to a method of clocking a ring counter and an
apparatus comprising a ring counter. See Spec. ,-r,-r 2--4.
Claims 1 and 7 are exemplary:
1. A method comprising:
driving a node of a stage of a nng counter to a
predetermined signal state; and
clocking the ring counter to cause the signal to propagate
to at least one additional stage of the ring counter to initialize
the ring counter with a reset sequence.
7. The method of claim 1, wherein
the ring counter comprises a plurality of stages;
the driving comprises driving a plurality of nodes of a
subset of the plurality of stages to establish a partial sequence
for the ring counter; and
the clocking comprises clocking the ring counter to
propagate the partial sequence to initialize the ring counter with
the reset sequence.
REFERENCE
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Carlach us 4,696,020 Sept. 22, 1987
REJECTION
Claims 1-20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being
anticipated by Carlach. Final Act. 2--4.
2
Appeal2014-002220
Application 13/242,580
ISSUES
Appellants argue that the Examiner's rejection of claims 1-20 is in
error. App. Br. 9-15; Reply Br. 1-3. These arguments present us with the
following issues:
(1) Did the Examiner err in finding that Carlach discloses
"clocking the ring counter to cause the signal state to
propagate to at least one additional stage of the ring
counter to initialize the ring counter with a reset
sequence," as recited in claim 1 and similarly recited in
claims 8 and 15?
(2) Did the Examiner err in finding that Carlach discloses
"driving a single node of the ringer counter" to a
predetermined signal state, as recited in claim 4 and
similarly recited in claims 11 and 18?
(3) Did the Examiner err in finding that Carlach discloses
"clocking to propagate the signal state to the at least one
other node" to initialize the ring counter with a reset
sequence, as recited in claim 5 and similarly recited in
claim 12?
( 4) uid the Examiner err in finding that Carlach discloses
"driving a plurality of nodes of a subset of the plurality of
stages to establish a partial sequence for the ring
counter," as recited in claim 7?
ANALYSIS
Claims 1-3, 6, 8-10, 13-17, 19, and 20
Appellants argue that Carlach fails to disclose "clocking the ring
counter to cause the signal state to propagate to at least one additional stage
of the ring counter to initialize the ring counter with a reset sequence," as
recited in claim 1 and similarly recited in claims 8 and 15. App. Br. 9-11;
Reply Br. 1-2. Specifically, Appellants argue that Carlach's "initialization"
process drives all of the nodes of the ring counter at the same time, rather
3
Appeal2014-002220
Application 13/242,580
than causing the signal state to propagate to at least one additional stage of
the ring counter. App. Br. 10-11. Appellants also contend that the
Examiner improperly relies on Carlach's clocking process, which occurs
after initialization, as a "reset sequence" because the clocking process does
not "reset" the ring counter as claimed. Reply Br. 1-2.
Appellants' arguments are not persuasive of error by the Examiner.
Carlach discloses a frequency divider circuit that "receives clock pulses H
at frequency f' and "is first initialized by applying a signal I at logical level
1 for a time sufficient to 'force' the state of all flip-flops." Carlach, col. 3,
11. 46-56. Then, "the first leading edge of a square clock signal (i.e. when
signal H increases from 0 to 1, at time t0 in FIG. 7), sets Q0 again to 0 and Q1
to 1," and "[t]he sequence continues on the following clock pulses" such that
the leading edge of the clock signal causes the logic 1 signal state to
propagate between stages of the ring counter, as shown in Figure 7. Id. at
col. 3, 1. 60-col. 4, 1. 5. The Examiner finds that the latter process in Carlach
discloses the disputed limitation, and we agree. See Ans. 4--5.
Although Carlach calls the first process "initialization," we do not see
any reason why the latter process, which propagates a signal state to
additional stages to produce a sequence, cannot be considered initializing the
ring counter with a reset sequence, as recited in claims 1, 8, and 15. See id.
(noting that how the "beginning and ending of the initialization state [is
defined] for the purpose of description does not affect the operation of the
circuit [in Carlach ]"). Appellants do not provide any evidence in the
Specification or the claims narrowing the claim language "initialize the ring
counter with a reset sequence" to require a particular sequence or type of
action.
4
Appeal2014-002220
Application 13/242,580
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of independent
claims 1, 8, and 15, as well as dependent claims 2, 3, 6, 9, 10, 13, 14, 16, 17,
19, and 20, which Appellants do not argue separately. See App. Br. 15.
Claims 4, 11, and 18
Appellants argue that Carlach fails to disclose "driving a single node
of the ringer counter" to a predetermined signal state, as recited in claim 4
and similarly recited in claims 11 and 18. App. Br. 12-13; Reply Br. 2.
Specifically, Appellants argue that Carlach discloses driving all of the ring
counter's nodes to a predetermined signal state during its initialization
process, rather than driving a single node. App. Br. 12. The Examiner
determines that "driving a single node," given its broadest reasonable
interpretation, does not prohibit also driving other nodes of the ring counter
as well because the claim language does not require that "only" one node be
driven. Ans. 5. We agree with the Examiner.
Claim 4 recites a "method comprising: driving a node of a stage of a
ring counter to a predetermined signal state ... wherein the driving
comprises driving a single node of the ringer counter." The claim uses the
open-ended term "comprising," indicating that other steps may be
performed. See Genentech, Inc. v. Chiron Corp., 112 F.3d 495, 501
(Fed. Cir. 1997) ("'Comprising' is a term of art used in claim language
which means that the named elements are essential, but other elements may
be added and still form a construct within the scope of the claim.").
Therefore, the claim requires that one node is driven, but does not preclude
other nodes from being driven as well. Appellants' argument is not
persuasive.
5
Appeal2014-002220
Application 13/242,580
For the reasons stated above, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of
claims 4, 11, and 18.
Claims 5 and 12
Appellants argue that Carlach fails to disclose "clocking to propagate
the signal state to the at least one other node" to initialize the ring counter
with a reset sequence, as recited in claim 5 and similarly recited in claim 12,
because the clocking relied on by the Examiner occurs after "initialization"
in Carlach. App. Br. 13; Reply Br. 2-3. For the reasons set forth above, we
do not agree that the Examiner improperly relied on the clocking process in
Carlach, which occurs after the process that Carlach calls "initialization."
Thus, we are not persuaded of error by the Examiner, and sustain the
Examiner's rejection of claims 5 and 12.
Claim 7
Appellants argue that Carlach fails to disclose "driving a plurality of
nodes of a subset of the plurality of stages to establish a partial sequence for
the ring counter," as recited in claim 7, because Carlach discloses driving all
of the nodes to establish a sequence for the ring counter. App. Br. 14--15;
Reply Br. 3. According to Appellants, "[i]f the nodes of the subset were all
of the nodes, then the nodes of the subset would [not] form a partial
sequence." Reply Br. 3. We agree with Appellants. The Examiner
determines that the recited step, given its broadest reasonable interpretation,
"does not prohibit the driving of all nodes of the ring counter." Ans. 6. The
Examiner does not explain sufficiently, however, how driving all of the
nodes would establish a "partial sequence" for the ring counter (in contrast
6
Appeal2014-002220
Application 13/242,580
to claim 1, for example, which recites a "reset sequence"). Thus, we cannot
sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 7.
CONCLUSION
Appellants have persuaded us of error in the Examiner's decision to
reject claim 7 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b), but have not persuaded us of error
in the Examiner's decision to reject claims 1---6 and 8-20 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b).
DECISION
For the above reasons, the Examiner's decision to reject claims 1---6
and 8-20 is affirmed, and the Examiner's decision to reject claim 7 is
reversed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l)(iv).
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
7