11176989 (B.P.A.I. Jan. 23, 2012)

Ex Parte Berke et al

Board of Patent Appeals and InterferencesJan 23, 2012

11176989 (B.P.A.I. Jan. 23, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS AND INTERFERENCES ____________ Ex parte STUART A. BERKE, SANDOR T. FARKAS and MUKUND P. KHATRI ____________ Appeal 2009-012115 Application 11/176,989 Technology Center 2100 ____________ Before ROBERT E. NAPPI, KRISTEN L. DROESCH, and DAVID M. KOHUT, Administrative Patent Judges. DROESCH, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL App App of cl syste doub refer chip such 30; p App The seco lanes slot 2 contr 13, l band 13, l eal 2009-0 lication 11 Appellan aims 1-22 Appellan ms and co le-bandwi ring to Ap set 16 supp as a PCI E . 11, ll. 1- ellants’ F PCIe link nd expans . Spec. p. 0 can rec oller card l. 4-12. Bi width ava l. 25-30; p 12115 /176,989 ST ts seek re . We have ts’ invent nfiguring dth link sl pellants’ F orting a ro xpress (P 2. Appella igure 1 is a 24 is bifur ion slots 1 11, ll. 2-4 eive an exp , a network furcating t ilable to sl . 14, ll. 1- ATEMEN view unde jurisdictio BACK ion genera expansion ot. Spec. p igure 1 re ot port 22 CIe) bus/li nts’ Figur block dia cated into 8 and 20, e ; p. 12, ll. 2 ansion ca adapter c he PCIe lin ots 18 and 11. Each sl 2 T OF TH r 35 U.S.C n under 35 GROUN lly relates bus links . 1, ll. 2-5 produced b capable o nk 24. Spe e 1 is repro gram of an two links ach link in 0-29. Bot rd, such as ard and a k 24 into 20. Spec. ot, howev E CASE . § 134(a) U.S.C. § D to informa of such sy ; Abs. The elow, a c f generatin c. p. 8, ll. duced bel informat 26 and 28 cluding a h the first a graphic communic two links p. 8, ll. 27 er, can be of a final 6(b). We A tion hand stems to g invention omputer m g an expa 6-11; p. 1 ow: ion handli coupled to fixed num slot 18 an s card, a s ation card 26 and 28 -30; p. 9, configured rejection FFIRM. ling enerate a includes, otherboar nsion bus 0, ll. 25- ng system first and ber of d second torage . Spec. p. halves the ll. 1-28; p. to d , . App App effec full b Figu conn Spec Ap Each throu 40 an 2. By trans port 18 an other conn eal 2009-0 lication 11 tively reco andwidth re 2 reprod ections nu . p. 13, ll. pellants’ F slot 18 an gh 7 that d 42. Spe installing mitted to t 22 can be d ultimate slot 20. S To preve ections of 12115 /176,989 mbine lin of PCIe li uced belo mbered 0 13-24. Appella igure 2 is li d 20 can f couple firs c. p. 13, ll a speciali he lower c routed to t ly to the u pec. p. 14 nt links fr the first sl ks 26 and nk 24. Id. w, each sl through 3 nts’ Figur a schemati nk betwee urther incl t slot 18 to . 13-24; p. zed adapte onnection he upper c pper conn , ll. 12-29; om inadve ot and the 3 28, such th In particul ot 18 and 2 that conne e 2 is repro c view of n expansio ude four u second sl 14, ll. 12- r card 30 s numbere onnection ections nu p. 15, ll. 1 rtently for second slo at one of ar, referrin 0 can inc ct to one o duced bel a techniqu n slots. pper conn ot 20 over 21; p. 16, (Fig. 1) in d 0 throug s numbere mbered 4 -2. ming betw t without the slots c g to Appe lude four l f links 26 ow: e for routi ections nu motherbo ll. 26-30; p to slot 18, h 3 of slot d 4 throug through 7 een the up a special a an use the llants’ ower and 28. ng a PCIe mbered 4 ard traces . 17, ll. 1- signals 18 by roo h 7 of slot of the per dapter t Appeal 2009-012115 Application 11/176,989 4 card, Appellants disclose swizzling the motherboard traces that connect the first slot and the second slot thereby avoiding direct coupling by respectively coupling connections numbered 4, 5, 6 and 7 of slot 20 to connections numbered 7, 6, 4 and 5 of slot 18. Spec. p. 17, ll. 2-21; p. 18, ll. 1-2; Table 1; Fig. 2. Claim 1 is illustrative and is reproduced below (disputed limitations in italics): 1. An information handling system, comprising: a central processing unit (CPU); memory operable to store program instructions executable by the CPU; a first slot and a second slot, wherein the first slot and second slot are electrically coupled in a manner operable to prevent links from being formed between the first and second slots; a chipset operably coupled to the CPU, the memory and the first and second slots, the chipset including a root port operable to generate a first link coupled to the first slot and a second link coupled to the second slot; and an adapter card inserted into either of the first or second slots such that the adapter card routes either the first or second link to the slot not populated by the adapter card, wherein the adapter card is operable to allow the formation of links between the first and second slots. Claims 1-22 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) are rejected as anticipated by Nguyen (US 2005/0240703 A1). ISSUE Did the Examiner err in finding that Nguyen’s first slot 18A and second slot 18B are electrically coupled in a manner operable to prevent links from forming between the first and second slots? App App argu Acti to th that indep as re 41.3 syste 18B slots Refe gene coup eal 2009-0 lication 11 We have ments in th on (“FOA” e Answer. all the clai endent cl presentativ 7(c)(vii). Nguyen m 2, inclu and a nort 18A and rring to N rates an x8 led to slot 12115 /176,989 reviewed e Appeal ) and the Appellant ms are allo aims 1, 10 e of the g describes, ding a CP h bridge 1 18B. Nguy Nguye Nguyen’s guyen’s Fi link and s 18A and AN the Exam Brief pres arguments s argue cla wable bec and 18. A roup comp referring t U 10, a me 2 that inter en ¶¶ 001 n’s Figure Figure 1 d gure 3A re bifurcates 18B. Ngu 5 ALYSIS iner’s reje ented in re in the Rep ims 1-22 ause they pp. Br. 4-9 rising clai o Figure 1 mory 14, connects t 1-12, 0014 1 is repro epicts a c produced the x8 link yen ¶¶ 002 ction in lig sponse to ly Brief p together as include lim . We, ther ms 1-22. 3 reproduc two PCI-E he CPU 1 -15. duced belo omputer sy below, no into two 2-23. ht of App the Final O resented in a group, itations r efore, sele 7 C.F.R. ed below, xpress slo 0, memory w: stem. rth bridge x4 links re ellants’ ffice response asserting ecited in ct claim 1 § a compute ts 18A an 14 and 12 spectively r d App App Nguy routi Nguy In pa four conn Nguy route conn eal 2009-0 lication 11 Nguyen’s en further ng an x4 l en ¶ 0027 Nguyen’ rticular, s connection ections 4- en ¶ 0027 s signals f ections. Id 12115 /176,989 Nguyen Figure 3A describes ink directe . Nguyen s Figure 3B lots 18A an s 0-3 cou 7 couple th . Inserting rom the sl . Motherb ’s Figure depicts an , referring d to one o ’s Figure depicts a d 18B inc ple to one e slots 18 jumper b ot’s lower oard trace 6 3A is repro impleme to Figure f slots 18A 3B is repro jumper b lude eight of the x4 l A and 18B oard 44 int 0-3 conne s 42 then r duced bel ntation of 3B, a jump and 18B duced bel oard insert connectio inks and th over mot o one of s ctions to t oute the si ow: a serial bu er board to the othe ow: ed into the ns 0-7; th e upper fo herboard t lots 18A a he slot’s u gnals from s link. 44 for r slot. slot. e lower ur races 42. nd 18B pper 4-7 the first Appeal 2009-012115 Application 11/176,989 7 slot’s upper 4-7 connections to the other slot’s upper 4-7 connections, completing a communications path with north bridge 12. Nguyen ¶ 0027. The Examiner finds that Nguyen’s CPU 10, memory 14, slots 18A and 18B, north bridge 12 and jumper board 44 correspond respectively to the claimed CPU, memory, first and second slot, chipset and adapter card. Ans. 3-4 (citing Nguyen ¶¶ 0014-15, 0018, 0021, 0027; Figs. 1-5). The Examiner further finds that slot 18A and slot 18B are coupled in a manner that prevents links from forming between the slots since no signal routing occurs between slots 18A and 18B without jumper board 44. Ans. 3-4, 10-11 (citing Nguyen ¶¶ 0022, 0027, Fig. 3B). Specifically, the Examiner finds that because each slot’s lower connections 0-3 do not connect with their upper connections 4-7 without jumper board 44, signals from north bridge 12 do not pass from one slot to another slot, assuming that each slot contains a device or card that only occupies lower connections 0-3 of the slot. Ans. 10- 11. Without any routing between slots 18A and 18B, the Examiner concludes, no link can form between the slots. Id. Appellants dispute whether Nguyen describes “wherein the first slot and the second slot are electrically coupled in a manner operable to prevent links from being formed between the first and second slots.” App. Br. 5; Reply Br. 5. In particular, Appellants argue that Nguyen does not describe the disputed limitations because Nguyen’s traces 42 are not “swizzled, or otherwise configured,” to prevent the formation of links between slots 18A and 18B “anytime” an adapter card is not present in one of the slots. App. Br. 6-8; Reply Br. 5. Appellants argue that traces 42 cannot prevent an erroneous link from forming between slots 18A and 18B when two x8 PCIe cards are simultaneously inserted into slots 18A and 18B and that traces 42 Appeal 2009-012115 Application 11/176,989 8 cannot, on their own, prevent a link from forming between slots 18A and 18B. App. Br. 6-7; Reply Br. 5. Appellants’ arguments are not commensurate in scope with the claim limitations. The plain language of the claim does not require the coupling to prevent a link between slots “anytime” an adapter card is not present in one of the slots. App. Br. 6. Indeed, the plain language of claim 1 fails to include an “anytime” limitation or other language suggesting that the coupling between the first slot and second slot prevents all possible links. Similarly, the plain language of the claim does not require that the coupling between the first and second slots to prevent an erroneous link from forming when x8 cards are inserted into both the first and second slots simultaneously. See App. Br. 6-7. Rather, the plain language merely recites that the coupling is “operable to prevent links,” or that the coupling can prevent a link under appropriate circumstances. The additional claim limitation of “an adapter card inserted into either of the first or second slots such that the adapter card routes either the first or second link to the slot not populated by the adapter card, wherein the adapter card is operable to allow the formation of links between the first and second slots” enumerates one circumstance where the coupling will fail to prevent a link, namely, when an adapter card is inserted in one of the first slot and the second slots. The claim language does not place any further limitations on the circumstances under which the coupling will or will not prevent the formation of a link between the first slot and the second slot. We further disagree with Appellants’ view that claim 1 requires swizzled connections between a first slot and a second slot, or connections that, on their own, prevent a link from forming between a first slot and a Appeal 2009-012115 Application 11/176,989 9 second slot. App. Br. 8; Reply Br. 5. The plain language of claim 1 does not require the swizzled connections described in Appellants’ Specification. Nor does the plain language of claim 1 require connections that, on their own, prevent the formation of links or any other specific structure for the connections. Rather, claim 1 merely requires a functional relationship between the coupling of a first and a second slot and the formation of links. The broad functional language of claim 1 readily admits any type of structural connection between the slots, assuming the connections can prevent the formation of a link between the first slot and the second slot in at least one scenario. Reviewing Appellants’ other claims fortifies this view of claim 1. In addition to the coupling clause recited in claim 1, independent claim 18 recites, “a plurality of electrical connections operable to couple the first slot to the second slot.” Claim 18 consequently includes two limitations that individually describe the structural and functional coupling between the first slot and the second slot. We will not override this distinction by reading structural limitations from the Specification into the claim, such as Appellants’ disclosed swizzled connections. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 1184 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Instead of adopting Appellants’ narrow construction of the disputed claim language, we apply the broadest reasonable interpretation to “wherein the first slot and the second slot are electrically coupled in a manner operable to prevent links from being formed between the first and second slots.” See In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054 (Fed. Cir. 1997). We construe the disputed limitations as requiring the first slot and second slot to be electrically coupled in a manner that can prevent a link from being formed between the first and second slots in at least one situation. The Examiner’s Appeal 2009-012115 Application 11/176,989 10 findings concerning Nguyen are consistent with this construction. In particular, the Examiner finds that Nguyen’s traces 42 prevent links from forming between slot 18A and slot 18B since traces 42 bridge slot 18A and 18B over connections 4-7. Ans. 10-11. Accordingly, when slots 18A and 18B contain expansion cards only occupying connections 0-3 of the slots, there is no communication on connections 4-7 of slots 18A and 18B. Appellants also argue that the Examiner erred in finding that Nguyen describes the absence of communication between slots 18A and 18B when jumper card 44 is not inserted in one of the slots. App. Br. 7. Appellants allege that there is no support in Nguyen for the Examiner’s findings. Id. Appellants further allege that Nguyen contradicts the Examiner’s findings since the upper connections 4-7 of slot 18A directly connect to the upper connections 4-7 of slot 18B. App. Br. 7-8. According to Appellants, the direct connection will cause any communications directed towards one set of upper connections to pass to the other set of upper connections. Id. We do not agree with Appellants’ arguments and agree with the Examiner’s findings. Consistent with the Examiner’s findings, a link will not form between Nguyen’s slots 18A and 18B without jumper card 44. Ans. 10-11 (citing Nguyen ¶¶ 00017-18, 0022, 0027, Fig. 3B). Without jumper card 44, there will be no traces 46 for routing lower connections 0-3 of slot 18A to upper connections 4-7 of slot 18A. Ans. 10. Accordingly, as the Examiner finds, communication signals from north bridge 12 cannot reach upper connections 4-7 of slot 18B. Ans. 11. Appellants do not direct us to objective evidence to dispute the Examiner’s findings. Appellants’ arguments raise the question as to how signals directed to upper connections 4-7 of slot 18A will pass to upper connections 4-7 of slot 18B since Appeal 2009-012115 Application 11/176,989 11 Appellants have not shown how signals arrive at upper connections 4-7 of slot 18A absent the jumper card 44. For all the foregoing reasons, we sustain the rejection of claims 1-22. DECISION We AFFIRM the rejection of claims 1-22 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being anticipated by Nguyen. TIME PERIOD 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). AFFIRMED msc