Eran Glickman et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Feb 27, 2020

14359932 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Feb. 27, 2020)

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.
14/359,932 05/22/2014 Eran Glickman NM46135EH 4817
34814 7590 02/27/2020
NXP-LARSON NEWMAN, LLP
6501 William Cannon Drive West
Austin, TX 78735
EXAMINER
GIBSON, JONATHAN D
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2113
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/27/2020 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):
ip.department.us@nxp.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
________________

Ex parte ERAN GLICKMAN, RON BAR, IDAN BEN AMI, and
BENNY MICHALOVICH
________________

Appeal 2018-004163
Application 14/359,932
Technology Center 2100
________________

Before BRYAN F. MOORE, JASON J. CHUNG, and
BETH Z. SHAW, Administrative Patent Judges.

CHUNG, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals the Final Rejection
of claims 1–20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
INVENTION
The invention relates to a controller, serial advanced technology
attachment (SATA) system and method of operation. Spec. 1:6–7. Claim 1
is illustrative of the invention and is reproduced below:

1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in
37 C.F.R. § 1.42. According to Appellant, NXP USA, Inc. is the real party
in interest. Appeal Br. 1.
Appeal 2018-004163
Application 14/359,932

2
1. A controller for operably coupling a drive unit to a
host unit in a serial advanced technology attachment (SATA)
system, wherein the controller comprises a hardware processor
arranged to:
receive a plurality of SATA data frames;
determine that a sequence of uncorrupted primitives in at
least one of the plurality of SATA data frames matches a first
primitive sequence stored at a register, the first primitive
sequence including more than one primitive, wherein the first
primitive sequence adversely affects a performance of the SATA
system; and
replace the sequence of primitives with a second primitive
sequence in response thereto.

Appeal Br. 9 (Claims Appendix).

REJECTIONS
Claims 1–7 and 9–20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over the combination of Schauer (US 7,047,335 B2; issued
May 16, 2006), Liu (US 7,634,692 B2; issued Dec. 15, 2009), and
Carmichael (US 7,619,984 B2; issued Nov. 17, 2009). Final Act. 2–14.
Claim 8 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable
over the combination of Schauer, Liu, Carmichael, and Carmichael (US
2006/0149878 A1; published July 6, 2006). Final Act. 8–9.

ANALYSIS
I. Claims 1–15 and 17–20 Rejected Under 35 U.S.C. § 103
The Examiner finds that although Liu teaches determining that a
sequence of corrupted primitives in at least one of the plurality of SATA
data frames matches a first primitive sequence stored at a register and
replacing the sequence of primitives with a second primitive sequence in
Appeal 2018-004163
Application 14/359,932

3
response thereto, Liu fails to teach uncorrupted primitives. Final Act. 3
(citing Liu, 5:43–47). Moreover, the Examiner finds Carmichael teaches a
frame with an error condition may be received successfully as long as the
number of errors is less than a determined threshold, which the Examiner
maps to the limitation “uncorrupted” recited in claims 1 and 16. Final Act.
3–4 (citing Carmichael, 5:37–48). Additionally, the Examiner finds
Appellant’s Specification states “[i]n some examples, the sequence
determined as being in error may be an error primitive that is typically
understood to be a legal (allowable) sequence or legal (allowable)
primitive.” Ans. 2 (citing Spec. 5:21–6:2).
Appellant argues because Liu teaches replacing a sequence of
corrupted primitives (rather than uncorrupted primitives as required by claim
1), Carmichael cannot be used to overcome the shortcomings of Liu. Appeal
Br. 4–5; Reply Br. 3–4. In addition, Appellant argues Carmichael fails to
teach uncorrupted primitives because Carmichael teaches indicating
reception of a frame successfully with one or more errors as long as the
number of errors is less than a determined threshold. Appeal Br. 5–6; Reply
Br. 2–3. We disagree with Appellant.
As for Appellant’s first argument, one cannot show nonobviousness
“by attacking references individually” where the rejections are based on
combinations of references. In re Merck & Co., Inc., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097
(Fed. Cir. 1986) (citing In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981)). In
this case, the Examiner relies on Liu to teach determining that a sequence of
corrupted primitives in at least one of the plurality of SATA data frames
matches a first primitive sequence stored at a register and replacing the
sequence of primitives with a second primitive sequence in response thereto.
Appeal 2018-004163
Application 14/359,932

4
Final Act. 3 (citing Liu, 5:43–47). Moreover, the Examiner relies on
Carmichael to teach a frame with an error condition may be received
successfully as long as the number of errors is less than a determined
threshold, which we agree teaches the limitation “uncorrupted” recited in
claims 1 and 16. Final Act. 3–4 (citing Carmichael, 5:37–48).
Furthermore, we disagree with Appellant’s argument that Carmichael
fails to teach uncorrupted primitives. Appeal Br. 5–6; Reply Br. 2–3. That
is, we agree with the Examiner’s finding that Appellant’s Specification and
Carmichael are both permitting errors in successfully received primitives as
long as the errors are beneath a determined threshold. Ans. 2 (citing Spec.
5:21–6:2) (the Specification states “[i]n some examples, the sequence
determined as being in error may be an error primitive that is typically
understood to be a legal (allowable) sequence or legal (allowable)
primitive”).
Accordingly, Appellant has not persuaded us of error in the
Examiner’s rejection of: (1) independent claims 1, 14, and 15; and
(2) dependent claims 2–13 and 17–20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
II. Claim 16 Rejected Under 35 U.S.C. § 103
The Examiner finds Liu teaches a current primitive sequence is
compared/matched to another primitive sequence (i.e., primitive code book
306) to determine if the current primitive should be replaced, which the
Examiner maps to the limitation
a programmable modified primitive sequence queue (MPSQ)
configured to store the second sequence to replace the first
sequence; and a primitive modification controller (PMC)
configured to transmit the second sequence from the MPSQ in
response to detecting the sequence of primitives in the at least
Appeal 2018-004163
Application 14/359,932

5
one of the plurality of SATA data frames matches the first
primitive sequence stored
(hereinafter “disputed limitation”) recited in claim 16. Final Act. 3, 7 (citing
Liu, 5:51–58; 6:44–47); Ans. 3–4.
Appellant argues Liu fails to teach replacing the sequence of
primitives when the sequence matches the primitive sequence stored at the
CPSQ because Liu merely teaches replacing corrupted primitives with
uncorrupted primitives. Appeal Br. 6–7; Reply Br. 4–5. We disagree with
Appellant.
Liu teaches a current primitive sequence is compared/matched to
another primitive sequence (i.e., primitive code book 306) to determine if
the current primitive should be replaced. Liu, 6:44–47 (cited at Final Act.
7); Ans. 3–4. Further, Liu teaches replacing primitives. Liu, 5:51–58 (cited
at Final Act. 3). We, therefore, agree with the Examiner’s finding that Liu
teaches the disputed limitation. Final Act. 3, 7 (citing Liu, 5:51–58; 6:44–
47); Ans. 3–4.
Accordingly, Appellant has not persuaded us of error in the
Examiner’s rejection of dependent claim 16 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
We have only considered those arguments that Appellant actually
raised in the Briefs. Arguments Appellant could have made, but chose not to
make, in the Briefs have not been considered and are deemed to be waived.
See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv).

Appeal 2018-004163
Application 14/359,932

6
CONCLUSION

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). See
37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED

Claim(s)
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§
Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1–7, 9–20 103 Schauer, Liu,
Carmichael
1–7, 9–20
8 103 Schauer, Liu,
Carmichael, and
Carmichael
8
Overall
Outcome
1–20