Ex Parte Knapp et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardNov 13, 201311676001 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 13, 2013) 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. 11/676,001 02/16/2007 David J. Knapp 5104-05400 7301 35617 7590 11/14/2013 DAFFER MCDANIEL LLP P.O. BOX 684908 AUSTIN, TX 78768 EXAMINER CHANG, KAI J ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2468 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 11/14/2013 PAPERPAPER 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. PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte DAVID J. KNAPP, RAINER P. MUELLER, HORACE C. HO, PATRICK HECK, RAINER KLOS, and CHRISTIAN THIEL ____________ Appeal 2011-003383 Application 11/676,0011 Technology Center 2400 ____________ Before JEAN R. HOMERE, CAROLYN D. THOMAS, and JUSTIN BUSCH, Administrative Patent Judges. THOMAS, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL 1 The real party in interest is Standard Microsystems Corporation. Appeal 2011-003383 Application 11/676,001 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the Examiner’s final decision rejecting claims 1-8 and 10-20, which are all the claims remaining in the application. Claim 9 is cancelled. We have jurisdiction over the appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM. The present invention relates generally to a synchronous communication system of nodes interconnected in a daisy chain. See Spec., 1:10-11. Claims 1 and 10 are illustrative: 1. A communication system, comprising: a first node; a second node; a third node; a first port coupled to the first node between two primary pairs of conductors and the first node for transferring non-streaming and streaming data synchronously between the first node and the second node; a second port coupled to the first node between two secondary pairs of conductors and the first node for transferring non-streaming and streaming data synchronously between the first node and the third node; and wherein each port within the first, second, and third nodes accommodates the transfer of bidirectional differential signals with multiplexers that convey information received on a receiver within one port to a transmitter of the same port or another port within the same node to effectuate a ring communication topology. 10. A communication system, comprising: two pairs of conductors linking a first node and a second node; and Appeal 2011-003383 Application 11/676,001 3 a serial bitstream of differential signals bifurcated into frames of data and sent bidirectionally across the two pairs of conductors, with each frame beginning with a frame coding violation and each non-streaming packet of data within each frame beginning with a packet coding violation. Appellants appeal the following rejection: Claims 1-8 and 10-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being anticipated by Edens (U.S. 6,611,537 B1, Aug. 26, 2003). Claim Groupings Based on Appellants’ arguments in the Appeal Brief, we will decide the appeal on the basis of claims as set forth below. See 37 C.F.R. 41.37(c)(1)(vii). ANALYSIS Issue: Did the Examiner err in finding that Edens discloses a port architecture as set forth in the claimed invention? Claims 1-8 Regarding claim 1, Appellants contend that “Edens describes a unidirectional transceiver arrangement, with information received upon a receiver (of that unidirectional transceiver) and conveying that received information exclusively to a transmitter of another port, but not to a transmitter of the same port” (App. Br. 5). The Examiner found that Edens discloses: The first node (junction box 218a) is connected to second node (junction box 226a) and third node (junction box 216a). The first port coupled to a first node (junction box contains two jacks, with one jack Appeal 2011-003383 Application 11/676,001 4 processing “incoming” information, col. 20 lines 29-43) between two primary pairs of conductors and the first node (the jack contains two wire pairs, wires 2 and 3 for “incoming” and wires 4 and 5 for “outgoing” . . . (Ans. 13.) The Examiner further found that “Edens discloses multiplexers that convey information received on a receiver within one port” (id. at 14). We agree with the Examiner. We start by noting that Appellants have essentially conceded that Edens discloses conveying the received information to a transmitter of another port (see App. Br. 5). With that in mind, we point out that independent claim 1 recites, inter alia, “convey information received on a receiver within one port to a transmitter of the same port or another port within the same node . . . ” (see claim 1)(emphasis added). In other words, although Appellants explicitly argue that Edens fails to convey information to a transmitter of the same port, claim 1 does not necessarily require using the same port, as alternative language is used in claim 1, i.e., same port or another port within the same node. As noted supra, we have an admission from Appellants that Edens’ information is being transmitted to another port within the same node. Supporting Appellants’ admission, the Examiner has shown that Edens discloses multiple ports in a node, i.e., incoming and outgoing jacks in the junction boxes (see Ans. 13; see also Edens col. 15, ll. 6-18 and col. 16, ll. 53-65). Thus, we agree that Eden at least discloses information being transmitted to another port within the same node. Appellants also contend for the first time in the Reply Brief that “multiplexer 2250 of Edens is simply used to select a window . . . ” (Reply Br. 3). The Examiner’s statement of the rejection for claims 1-8 in the Answer appears to be substantially the same as, if not identical to, the Appeal 2011-003383 Application 11/676,001 5 statement of the rejection in the Final Rejection. Appellants thus could have presented the new argument in support of claims 1-8 in the Appeal Brief, such that we would have had benefit of the Examiner’s evaluation of the argument in the responsive Answer. Appellants do not explain what good cause there might be to consider the new argument. Appellants’ new argument is thus untimely and has, accordingly, not been considered. See Ex parte Borden, 93 USPQ2d 1473 (BPAI 2010) (informative) (“[T]he reply brief [is not] an opportunity to make arguments that could have been made in the principal brief on appeal to rebut the Examiner's rejections, but were not.”). Claims 10-20 Regarding independent claims 10 and 15, Appellants contend that in Edens “[a]n illegal 5-bit value that indicates faulty or illegal data is not equivalent to a coding violation indicating good, non-faulty, yet non- streaming data to distinguish it from, for example, streaming data. The so- called ‘coding violation’ of Edens is used for an entirely different purpose, e.g., to indicate faulty or illegal data . . . ” (App. Br. 7-8). While the Examiner found that in Edens “each non-streaming packet of data within each frame begins with a packet coding violation” (Ans. 15), in the Examiner’s cited passages in Edens, i.e., col. 65, ll. 41-54, we fail to see how frames are organized by Edens, i.e., beginning with a frame coding violation and each non-steaming packet of data within each frame beginning with a packet coding violation. However, we find that “each frame beginning with a frame coding violation and each non-streaming packet of data within each frame Appeal 2011-003383 Application 11/676,001 6 beginning with a packet coding violation,” as recited in independent claims 10 and 15, merely refers to non-functional descriptive material. The Examiner, and the Board, need not give patentable weight to descriptive material that does not have a new and unobvious functional relationship with the substrate (nonfunctional descriptive material). In re Gulack, 703 F.2d 1381, 1386; see also In re Ngai, 367 F.3d 1336, 1338 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Non-functional descriptive material refers to data content that does not exhibit a functional interrelationship with the substrate and does not affect the way the computing processes are performed. See MPEP § 2106.01. See also Ex parte Nehls, 88 USPQ2d 1883, 1887-1888 (BPAI 2008) (precedential). Here, how the frames are organized (i.e., with frame/packet coding violations) does not affect the way any computing processes are performed, as the representative claims do not require distinguishing non- streaming data from streaming data, rather merely require transferring data. Therefore, we are not persuaded that the Examiner erred in rejecting (1) independent claims 1, 10, and 15; and (2) dependent claims 2-8, 11-14, and 16-20 for similar reasons. DECISION We affirm the Examiner’s § 102(e) rejection of claims 1-8 and 10-20. 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)(1)(iv). AFFIRMED ke Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation