Ex Parte Brown et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 11, 2013

10882389 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 11, 2013)

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.
10/882,389 07/02/2004 Kevin Brown 1875.3920004 3715
26111 7590 03/11/2013
STERNE, KESSLER, GOLDSTEIN & FOX P.L.L.C.
1100 NEW YORK AVENUE, N.W.
WASHINGTON, DC 20005
EXAMINER
TAYLOR, BARRY W
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2646
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/11/2013 PAPER
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 KEVIN BROWN, RICHARD G. THOUSAND,
and JOHN CREIGH
____________

Appeal 2011-002733
Application 10/882,389
Technology Center 2600
____________

Before JOSEPH F. RUGGIERO, CAROLYN D. THOMAS, and
ELENI MANTIS MERCADER, Administrative Patent Judges.

MANTIS MERCADER, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2011-002733
Application 10/882,389

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of
claims 1-3 and 6-28. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.

THE INVENTION
Appellants’ claimed invention is directed to a method and a system
having a physical (PHY) layer that initiates standby mode of operation when
a period during which a first transceiver has no data to transmit exceeds a
value of a wait timer. See Spec. ¶ [0037].
Independent claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the subject
matter on appeal.
1. A method for reducing power consumption in a first transceiver in
communication with a remote transceiver and having a physical (PHY) layer
with a multi-channel architecture, comprising:
(a) initiating standby mode of operation when a period during which
the first transceiver has no data to transmit exceeds a value of a wait timer;
and
(b) if it is determined in step (a) that standby mode should be initiated,
(1) transmitting a standby code on a channel of the PHY layer
to maintain a link between the transceiver and the remote transceiver,
and
(2) powering down at least one circuit in the transceiver.

REFERENCES and REJECTIONS
1. The Examiner rejected claims 1, 2, 8-15, 22, and 24-28 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Mills I (U.S. Pat. No.
6,795,450 B1; Sep. 21, 2004) in view of Lo (U.S. Pat. No.
7,392,412 B1; June 24, 2008).
Appeal 2011-002733
Application 10/882,389

3
2. The Examiner rejected claims 3, 6, 7, 16-21, and 23 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Mills I in view of Lo and
further in view of Mills II (U.S. Pat. Application Publication No.
2003/0165142 A1; Sep. 4, 2003).

ISSUE
The issue is whether the Examiner erred in finding that the
combination of Mills I in view of Lo teaches the limitation of “initiating
standby mode of operation when a period during which the first transceiver
has no data to transmit exceeds a value of a wait timer” as recited in claim 1.

ANALYSIS
Claims 1, 2, 8-15, 22, and 24-28
Appellants argue that the combination of Mills I in view of Lo does
not teach the limitation of “initiating standby mode of operation when a
period during which the first transceiver has no data to transmit exceeds a
value of a wait timer” as recited in claim 1 (App. Br. 14-23).
We agree. The Examiner (Ans. 20) relies on Lo for teaching that
timers are used to provide settling times between selected state changes
and/or sufficient time to complete processes (col. 6, ll. 39-43). The
Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious for one of ordinary
skill in the art at the time of invention to modify the PHY layer devices as
taught by Mills I to use timers as taught by Lo in order to ensure the PHY
devices have enough time to complete the current process before switching
to another mode (Ans. 20). While we agree with the Examiner that Lo
teaches that timers allow for enough time to complete a process, we find no
Appeal 2011-002733
Application 10/882,389

4
teaching for initiating the standby mode of operation when a period during
which the transceiver has no data to transmit exceeds a value of a wait
timer.
Thus, we reverse the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1 and for the same
reasons, the rejection of claims 2, 8-15, 22, and 24-28.
Claims 3, 6, 7, 16-21, and 23
We also reverse the Examiner’s rejection of claims 3, 6, 7, 16-21, and
23 for the same reasons as stated supra. We note that the additional
reference of Mills II does not cure the above cited deficiency.

CONCLUSION
The Examiner erred in finding that the combination of Mills I in view
of Lo teaches the limitation of “initiating standby mode of operation when a
period during which the first transceiver has no data to transmit exceeds a
value of a wait timer” as recited in claim 1.

DECISION
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-3 and 6-28 is reversed.

REVERSED

babc