Ex Parte Anderson

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 19, 2018

14629358 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 19, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
14/629,358 02/23/2015 Eric W. Anderson
65656 7590 12/21/2018
KILPATRICK TOWNSEND & STOCKTONLLP/Apple
Mailstop: IP Docketing - 22
1100 Peachtree Street
Suite 2800
Atlanta, GA 30309
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.
909ll-Pl0941USD1-936947 1009
EXAMINER
PHAN,DEAN
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2184
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/21/2018 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):
ipefiling@kilpatricktownsend.com
KTSDocketing2@kilpatrick.foundationip.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte ERIC W. ANDERSON
Appeal2018-004999
Application 14/629,358
Technology Center 2100
Before CARLA M. KRIVAK, JAMES B. ARPIN, and
ADAM J. PYONIN, Administrative Patent Judges.
KRIVAK, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of
claims 14--18 and 21-35. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm-in-part.
Appeal2018-004999
Application 14/629,358
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant's invention is directed to "circuits, methods, and apparatus
that may improve networking techniques for transferring data among various
electronic devices." Spec. ,r 6. This is achieved by "cross-over and bypass
configurations for high-speed data transmission." Spec. 1 (Title)
( capitalization and emphasis omitted).
Independent claim 14, reproduced below, is exemplary of the subject
matter on appeal.
14. A method of transferring data among a plurality of
electronic devices, the method comprising:
receiving first data at a first routing circuit of a first
electronic device;
receiving second data at a second routing circuit of the
first electronic device;
providing the first data using the first routing circuit to
one of a first electronic circuit of the first electronic device, a
second set of pins of a first connector of the first electronic
device, or a second set of pins of a second connector of the first
electronic device; and
providing the second data using the second routing
circuit to one of a first set of pins of the first connector of the
first electronic device, or a first set of pins of the second
connector of the first electronic device,
wherein the first connector and the second connector of
the first electronic device are the same type of connector, each
having corresponding pins in corresponding positions for a first
lane and each having corresponding pins in corresponding
positions for a second lane, the first set of pins of the first
connector for a first lane of the first connector, the first set of
pins of the second connector for a first lane of the second
connector, the second set of pins of the first connector for a
second lane of the first connector, and the second set of pins of
the second connector for a second lane of the second connector.
2
Appeal2018-004999
Application 14/629,358
REJECTIONS and REFERENCES
The Examiner rejected claims 14, 18, 21, 22, 24--26, 28, 30, 31, 33,
and 34 under 35 U.S.C. § I02(b) as anticipated by Kim (US 2009/0182917
Al; July 16, 2009).
The Examiner rejected claims 15, 16, 23, 27, 32, and 35 under
35 U.S.C. § I03(a) based upon the teachings of Kim and Fields (US
2009/0117754 Al; May 7, 2009).
The Examiner rejected claim 17 under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) based upon
the teachings of Kim, Fields, and Jaramillo (US 8,380,912 B2; Feb. 19,
2013).
The Examiner rejected claim 29 under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) based upon
the teachings of Kim and Jaramillo.
ANALYSIS
Appellant contends the Examiner erred in finding Kim discloses all of
the limitations of independent claims 14 and 24. App. Br. 4--6. Appellant
asserts "Kim does not teach providing data to a first connector and a second
connector as required by claims 14 and 24." App. Br. 4 (emphasis omitted).
Rather, Appellant asserts, Kim discloses a single connector. App. Br. 5.
Initially, we note the method of independent claim 14 recites
providing first data, using a first routing circuit, to a second set of pins of a
first connector or a second set of pins of a second connector of the first
electronic device and providing second data, using a second routing circuit,
to a first set of pins of the first connector or a first set of pins of the second
connecter of the first electronic device. Because of each conditional "or" in
3
Appeal2018-004999
Application 14/629,358
the claim, all that is required by claim 14 is a single connector. 1 Appellant's
only argument is that Kim discloses a single connector. As claim 14
requires only a single connector, Kim teaches this limitation. Therefore, on
the record before us, we agree with the Examiner that Kim anticipates
Appellant's claim 14, and claims 21 and 22, dependent therefrom and not
separately argued.
Independent claim 24 recites a device that includes separate first and
second connectors. The Examiner finds a pin is functionally a connector.
Ans. 2-3. We do not agree. We agree with Appellant that, consistent with
the Specification, a pin is not a connector, and Kim's recited single plug
does not include multiple connectors. App. Br. 5. Although Appellant's
Specification does not provide a definition for the term "connector,"
paragraphs 39, 40, and 41 of Appellant's Specification state that pins are
part of a connector ( e.g., "pins or contacts in the connector," "pins of
connector 512," etc.), and are not the connector itself. Thus, we agree with
Appellant, Kim does not disclose the first and second connectors as recited
in claim 24. As Kim discloses only one connector, not two as recited, Kim
does not anticipate claim 24 or claims 26, 28, 30, 31, 33, and 34, dependent
therefrom and not separately argued.
Dependent claim 18 recites data being provided by an input/ output
port. This limitation also is found in independent claim 24 (input/output
circuitry). The Examiner finds Kim discloses this limitation, stating the
"claim language does not require 'input/output circuitry' or 'an input/output
1 See Ex parte Schulhauser, No. 2013-007847, 2016 WL 6277792, at *4
(PT AB Apr. 28, 2016) (precedential) ( discussing construction of conditional
limitations in method claims).
4
Appeal2018-004999
Application 14/629,358
port,'" rather, the input/output port "is equivalent to an input port or an
output port." Ans. 4. We do not agree.
An input/output port by its nature is bidirectional. Kim discloses data
flowing in only one direction through its routers-from left to right (see Kim
,r 31 ). App. Br. 6. Thus, as Kim does not disclose this bidirectional
limitation, Kim does not anticipate dependent claim 18 or independent claim
24.
Dependent claims 15-17 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103, however no arguments were provided and Appellant acknowledges
they fall with their base claim, claim 14. App. Br. 6. Similarly, dependent
claims 27, 29, 32, and 35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 and stand with
their base claim 24. Id.
DECISION
The Examiner's decision rejecting claims 14, 21, and 22 under 35
U.S.C. § 102 is affirmed.
The Examiner's decision rejecting claims 18, 24--26, 28, 30, 31, 33,
and 34 under 35 U.S.C. § 102 is reversed.
The Examiner's decision rejecting claims 15-17 and 23 under
35 U.S.C. § 103 is affirmed.
The Examiner's decision rejecting claims 27, 29, 32, and 35 under
35 U.S.C. § 103 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
5