Ex Parte Connolly et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 17, 2015

12056386 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 17, 2015)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte BRIAN J. CONNOLLY and TODD E. LEONARD
____________

Appeal 2012-005828
Application 12/056,386
Technology Center 2400
____________

Before JEAN R. HOMERE, CAROLYN D. THOMAS, and
MICHELLE N. WORMMEESTER, Administrative Patent Judges.

THOMAS, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appellants seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the Examiner
finally rejecting claims 1–9, all the claims pending in the application.
Claims 10–13 are cancelled. We have jurisdiction over the appeal under 35
U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
The present invention relates generally to tuning each channel of a
high-speed SerDes link interface arranged in a configuration linking a local
side to a remote side. See Abstract.

Appeal 2012-005828
Application 12/056,386

2
Claim 1 is illustrative:
1. A method for tuning each channel of a physical multi-
channel high-speed SerDes link interface arranged in a configuration
physically linking a local side to a remote side, the method
comprising:
separately transmitting a flow control packet from the
local side to the remote side on each channel of the physical multi-
channel high-speed SerDes link interface to change remote side
transmission characteristics in each link channel;
separately monitoring the signal eye characteristics in
each link channel at the local side;
transferring additional flow control packets from the
local side to the remote side on each physical link channels- to adjust
the remote side transmission characteristics for each channel
independent of each other; and
processing the signal eye characteristics at the local side
to generate the remote side transmission characteristics for each link
channel.

Appellants appeal the following rejections:

R1. Claims 1, 3–5, and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Murugan (US 2005/0125175 A1, Jun. 9, 2005),
Camara (US 2004/0258166 A1, Dec. 23, 2004), Lesartre (US 2006/0184864
A1, Aug. 17, 2006), and Kim (US 2007/0201437 A1, Aug. 30, 2007);
R2. Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Murugan, Camara, Lesartre, Kim, and Dohmen (US
7,184,475 B2, Feb. 27, 2007);
R3. Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Murugan, Camara, Lesartre, Kim, and Pearson (US
2006/0090195, Apr. 27, 2006); and
R4. Claims 7 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Murugan, Camara, Lesartre, Kim, and Parker (US
Appeal 2012-005828
Application 12/056,386

3
7,463,628 B2, Dec. 9, 2008).

Claim Groupings
Based on Appellants’ arguments in the Appeal Brief, we will decide
the appeal on the basis of claim 1, as set forth below. See 37 C.F.R.
41.37(c)(1)(vii).

ANALYSIS
Claims 1–9
Issue: Did the Examiner err in finding that the combined teachings,
particularly Murugan and Camara, teach or suggest separately transmitting a
flow control packet . . . on each channel of the physical multi-channel high-
speed SerDes link and separately monitoring, as set forth in claim 1?
Appellants contend “claims 1 and 9 require that flow control packets
are sent separately and that each channel is separately monitored. These
limitations are not taught in the cited references. . . . . Camara only teaches a
single channel so its teachings are limited to monitoring a single channel”
(App. Br. 4). We disagree with Appellants.
Specifically, Appellants’ arguments do not take into account what the
collective teachings of the prior art would have suggested to one of ordinary
skill in the art and is therefore ineffective to rebut the Examiner’s prima
facie case of obviousness. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981)
(“The test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary
reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary
reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in
any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined
Appeal 2012-005828
Application 12/056,386

4
teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill
in the art.”) (citations omitted, emphasis added). This reasoning is
applicable here.
For example, the Examiner finds:
In Figure 1, Murugan illustrates a multi-channel high-speed SerDes
link interface with separate channels 22, 24, and 26 (Murugan, Para
[0019-0024]).

In Figure 2, Camara illustrates and discloses a single channel, where
Receiver 14 (e.g., local side), monitors the signal eye of the received
serialized differential input data signal transmitted from Transmitter
12 (e.g., remote side), (Camara, Para [0019]).

In response to measuring the received input signal, a feedback signal
(e.g., flow control packet) is sent on the data link 16 to Transmitter
12 for equalizing the data eye of the serialized differential input data
signal in response to the received feedback signal from receiver 14,
(Camara, para [0019-0020]).

(Ans. 24). The Examiner further finds that “it would be obvious to one of
ordinary skill to apply the technique of Camara used for a single channel,
separately for each channel 22, 24, and 26 of the multi-channel high-speed
SerDes link interface” (id.). We agree with the Examiner.
While we agree with Appellants that Camara discloses a single
channel, Appellants’ arguments fail to consider that another reference, i.e.,
Murugan, discloses a multi-channel high-speed SerDes Link (see Murugan,
¶¶ 19-24) and what the combined teachings of Camara and Murugan would
have suggested to one of ordinary skill in the art.
In view of the above discussion, because Appellants have not
demonstrated that the Examiner erred in finding the argued limitations in at
least the combined disclosures of Murugan and Camara, the Examiner’s
Appeal 2012-005828
Application 12/056,386

5
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of representative independent claim 1, as well
as claims 2–9 not separately argued by Appellants, is sustained.

DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s § 103(a) rejections R1–R4.
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

lv