Ex Parte ZerbeDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardDec 19, 201613695245 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 19, 2016) 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. 13/695,245 10/29/2012 Jared L. Zerbe RBS2.P103US 4717 44429 7590 12/21/2016 Peninsula Patent Omim fRamhnsiJ EXAMINER 203 Woodrow Ave. Santa Cruz, CA 95060 LUGO, DAVID B ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2631 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 12/21/2016 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): lkreisman@peninsulaiplaw.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte JARED L. ZERBE Appeal 2016-000506 Application 13/695,245 Technology Center 2600 Before ELENI MANTIS MERCADER, LARRY J. HUME, and ALEX S. YAP, Administrative Patent Judges. YAP, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the final rejection of claims 1-20 and 22-26.2 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. 1 According to Appellant, the real party in interest is Rambus, Inc. (App. Br. 3.) 2 Claim 21 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form. (Final Office Action (mailed Dec. 26, 2014) (“Final Act.”) 15.) Appeal 2016-000506 Application 13/695,245 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Introduction Appellant’s disclosed and claimed invention “relates to signaling systems and more particularly to receiver circuits having edge and data samplers.” (Spec. 11.) Claim 1 is illustrative, and is reproduced below: 1. An integrated circuit receiver comprising: a data receiving circuit responsive to a timing signal to detect a data signal, the timing signal created synchronous with the data signal; an edge receiving circuit responsive to the timing signal to detect a transition of the data signal; and wherein one of the data or edge receiving circuits comprises an integrating receiver circuit, and the other of the data or edge receiving circuits comprises a sampling receiver circuit. Prior Art and Rejections on Appeal The following table lists the prior art relied upon by the Examiner as evidence in rejecting the claims on appeal: Laturell et al. (“Laturell”) Wu et al. (“Wu”) Liu Smith et al. (“Smith”) Zerbe et al. (“Zerbe”) Stott et al. (“Stott”) US 2004/0096013 Al May 20, 2004 US 2004/0165617 Al Aug. 26, 2004 US 6,832,325 B2 Dec. 14, 2004 US 2005/0018760 Al Jan. 27, 2005 US 2006/0170453 Al Aug. 3, 2006 US 2007/0217559 Al Sept. 20, 2007 2 Appeal 2016-000506 Application 13/695,245 Claims 1, 2, 7, 8, and 13 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Laturell. (See Final Act. 6-7.) Claims 1-13, 15, 17, 19, 20, and 22 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Zerbe in view of Smith. (See Final Act. 7-11.) Claims 14, 25, and 26 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Zerbe, in view of Smith, and further in view of Stott. (See Final Act. 11-12.) Claims 16 and 23 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Zerbe, in view of Smith, and further in view of Liu. (See Final Act. 12-13.) Claims 18 and 24 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Zerbe, in view of Smith, and further in view of Wu. (See Final Act. 14.) ANALYSIS We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellant’s arguments the Examiner erred. We are not persuaded that the Examiner erred in rejecting the claims on appeal for the reasons discussed, infra. Argument One Laturell Relates to Asynchronous Communications, Not Synchronous Communications With respect to claim 1, the Examiner finds Laturell anticipates the claim, including the “a data receiving circuit responsive to a timing signal to detect a data signal, the timing signal created synchronous with the data signal” limitation. (Final Act. 6.) Appellant, however, contends: 3 Appeal 2016-000506 Application 13/695,245 Laturell relates to a conventional clock and data recovery (CDR) circuit that extracts a clock signal from received data signals. As explained by Laturell in Paragraph [0006]: “Many high-speed communications systems use asynchronous communication, . . . In other words, the extracted clock signal is not created synchronous with the data signals. Summarizing, Larsson relates to asynchronous communication, not synchronous, as claimed in claim 1. (App. Br. 9, emphasis in original; Reply 4—5.) In other words, Appellant contends that because Laturell relates to asynchronous communications and not synchronous communication, Laturell does not disclose the limitation at issue. Appellant has not persuaded us the Examiner erred. We agree with the Examiner’s finding: [C]laim 1 does not recite that the integrated circuit is a “synchronous integrated circuit” or that the communication is synchronous communication. Instead, the claim recites “a data receiving circuit responsive to a timing signal to detect a data signal, the timing signal created synchronous with the data signaF (emphasis added). That is, claim 1 merely recites that the data receiving circuit is responsive to a timing signal, and this timing signal is created synchronous with the data signal. The claim does not specify where the timing signal is “created” (i.e. at the receiver or at a transmitter). Thus, an interpretation of the timing signal being “created” at the receiver, this timing signal being synchronous with the data signal, would [disclose] the aforementioned limitation. (Ans. 12-13, emphasis in original.) Appellant has not offered persuasive argument or evidence that the Examiner’s interpretation is either overly broad or unreasonable. See In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319, 321 (Fed. Cir. 1989) (holding that, although the claims are interpreted in light of the Specification, limitations from the Specification are not read into the claims). In the Reply Brief, Appellant further contends the timing signal of 4 Appeal 2016-000506 Application 13/695,245 Laturell (i.e., the MIXO signal) not “synchronous with the incoming data” because the MIXO signal is twice the rate of the input data. (Reply 5.) According to Appellant, it “is well-known in the art [that] a timing signal is synchronous with another signal when it not only matches phase, but also rate,” therefore, Appellant contends Laturell fails to disclose the limitation at issue. (Reply 5.) We again decline Appellant’s invitation to read further limitations into the claim. Importantly, Appellant’s assertion in this regard is mere attorney argument, a conclusory statement, which is unsupported by factual evidence. Thus, this argument is also entitled to little probative value. In reLovin, 652 F.3d 1349, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2011); In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1470 (Fed. Cir. 1997); In re De Blauwe, 736 F.2d 699, 705 (Fed. Cir. 1984). Furthermore, we agree with and adopt the Examiner’s finding regarding this issue. (Final Act. 6; Ans. 12-14.) For the foregoing reasons, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1 such that we sustain the 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) rejection of claim 1. Appellant does not make any separate, substantive patentability arguments regarding dependent claims 2, 7, 8, and 13, but instead rely solely on their arguments with respect to claim 1. Therefore, we also sustain the 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) rejection of claims 2, 7, 8, and 13. Argument Two The Same Timing Signal is Not Used for Detecting a Data Signal and a Transition of the Data Signal The Examiner also finds the combination of Zerbe and Smith teaches or suggests claim 1. (Final Act. 7-8.) Specifically, the Examiner finds Zerbe teaches or suggests the following limitations: “a data receiving circuit responsive to a timing signal to detect a data signal, ... an edge receiving 5 Appeal 2016-000506 Application 13/695,245 circuit responsive to the timing signal to detect a transition of the data signal.” {Id. at 7.) Appellant contends the same timing signal in Zerbe is not used for detecting a data signal and a transition of the data signal Figure 23A of Zerbe is reproduced below. Figure 23A depicts “an alternate embodiment of an adjustment system to set the timing of each receiver in a system having multiple integrating receivers.” (Zerbe 174.) According to Appellant: Zerbe’s integrating receiver 334 is not responsive to the same timing signal that drives the two sampling sampling [sic] circuits (phase sense amplifier 862-1 and data sense amplifier 864-1). For at least this reason, claim 1 distinguishes over the cited portions of Zerbe. Moreover, as shown in FIG. 23B of Zerbe, the two sense amplifier circuits appear to detect respective leading and trailing transitions of the data signal, and not the data signal itself. For at least this reason, claim 1 distinguishes over Zerbe. (App. Br. 13, emphasis added.) The Examiner responds noting that: [T]he portions of the Zerbe reference considered to correspond with the claimed “data receiving circuit” are at least elements 6 Appeal 2016-000506 Application 13/695,245 334 and 864-1 of Fig. 23 A. These elements, when considered together as a “data receiving circuit” are considered to be “responsive to a timing signal” (i.e. Receive clock) as the receive clock is shown to be provided to data sense amplifier 864-1 portion of the “data receiving circuit, ” where the data receiving circuit is considered to “detect a data signal[.]” (Ans. 14-15, emphasis added.) In other words, Appellant is not pointing to all the elements in Figure 23 A for the “data receiving circuit.” Appellant does not reply and has not persuaded us the Examiner erred. For the foregoing reasons, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1 such that we sustain the 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of claim 1. Appellant does not make any separate, substantive patentability arguments regarding independent claims 15 and 22 and dependent claims 2— 14, 16—20, and 23—26, but instead rely solely on their arguments with respect to claim 1. Therefore, we also sustain the 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejections of claims 2—14, 16—20, and 23—26. DECISION We affirm the decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1-20 and 22-26. 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). See 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l)(iv). AFFIRMED 7 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation