Ex Parte Dai

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 28, 2013

11068225 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 28, 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.
11/068,225 02/28/2005 Xingdong Dai 2 6120
47386 7590 03/29/2013
RYAN, MASON & LEWIS, LLP
1300 POST ROAD
SUITE 205
FAIRFIELD, CT 06824
EXAMINER
ALMO, KHAREEM E
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2816
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/29/2013 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 XINGDONG DAI
__________

Appeal 2010-009407
Application 11/068,225
Technology Center 2800
___________

Before BRIAN J. MCNAMARA, JAMES B. ARPIN, and
TRENTON WARD, Administrative Patent Judges.

WARD, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the rejection of
claims 1, 7, 13, and 19. The real party in interest is Agere Systems Inc. We
have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).We affirm.
Appeal 2010-009407
Application 11/068,225
2

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Applied Prior Art
Starr US 7,242,229 B1 July 10, 2007

Rejection on Appeal
Claims 1, 3-7, 9-13, 15-20 were finally rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(e) as unpatentable over Starr.
1

Invention
The claimed invention is directed to methods and apparatus for
counter-based digital frequency lock detection, in which a frequency
offset violation of the target clock is detected by comparing a value of
the target counter to an n bit counter. Spec., 2:7-12. Claim 1 is
illustrative and is reproduced below, with certain disputed limitations
italicized:
1. A counter-based digital frequency lock detector, comprising:
a reference counter clocked by a reference clock; and
a target counter clocked by a target clock, wherein said
target counter is n bits, and n is less than a number of bits of
said reference counter, and wherein a frequency offset
violation of said target clock is detected by comparing a value
of said target counter to a value of an n bit counter, wherein
said frequency offset violation occurs when said target clock
has a frequency offset relative to said reference clock is greater
than or equal to a non-zero predefined value.

1
We note that, although the Examiner issued a Final Rejection against all
pending claims, claims 1, 3-7, 9-13, 15-20, Appellant only appeals claims 1,
7, 13, and 19. App. Br. 2. Thus, we consider all claims that were not
appealed, claims 3-6, 9-12, 15-18, and 20, to be cancelled.
Appeal 2010-009407
Application 11/068,225
3

DISCUSSION
The Examiner determined that Starr disclosed every element of
Appellant’s claim 1, including a reference counter clocked by a reference
clock, a target counter clocked by a target clock, and the detection of a
frequency offset violation when the target clock has a frequency offset
relative to the reference clock that is greater than or equal to a non-zero
predefined value. Ans. 3-4. Appellant argues that Starr fails to anticipate
Appellant’s claim 1 on three grounds.
First, Appellant argues that it attempted to amend each of the
independent claims to recite a non-zero predefined threshold value, and that
Starr fails to disclose such a “threshold” value. App. Br. 4-5. Appellant
attempted to introduce the term “threshold” into the independent claims in
its Amendment After Final Office Action on September 9, 2009. In an
Advisory Action, dated October 5, 2009, the Examiner denied Appellant’s
request to amendthe independent claims after Final Action because the
proposed amendment raised new issues that would require further
consideration and/or search. Thus, the term “threshold” does not appear in
the claims on the record before us. Accordingly, we decline to consider
Appellant’s arguments regarding the failure of the prior art to disclose a non-
zero predefined threshold value.
Second, Appellant argues that, although Starr discloses a threshold
equal to zero, Starr fails to disclose a frequency offset violation that occurs
when said target clock has a frequency offset relative to the reference clock
is greater than or equal to a non-zero predefined value. App. Br. 5. The
Examiner finds, however, that Starr discloses that a frequency offset
violation occurs when the frequency offset equals anything but zero. Ans. 6.
More particularly, the Examiner finds that, since the frequency violation
Appeal 2010-009407
Application 11/068,225
4

disclosed in Starr would occur at a value greater than zero, the “predefined
value that the offset is triggered at is greater than 0 (i.e. 1.1, 1, 2, 3…).”
Ans. 6-7. We agree that Starr discloses a phase frequency detector that
determines that an offset violation occurs whenever the offset value is non-
zero. Starr, 3:12-17 (“Depending on the difference between the two signals
compared by the [phase frequency detector] PFD 105 … either an up or
down signal is provided to the CP with a programmable current reference
circuit 110.”). Therefore, we are not persuaded of error in the Examiner’s
finding that Starr discloses that a “frequency offset violation occurs” when
the frequency offset is “greater than or equal to a non-zero predefined
value,” as recited in Appellant’s claim 1. The non-zero predefined value is
disclosed in Starr as anything other than zero. Ans. 6-7.
Appellant agrees that Starr discloses that the frequency offset may be
a value greater than zero, but argues that the predefined value, to which the
frequency offset is compared, is defined as zero in Starr and greater than or
equal to a non-zero predefined value in the rejected claims. App. Br. 5.
Despite Appellant’s argument, Appellant’s independent claims require only
that the offset violation occur when the frequency offset is “greater than or
equal to a non-zero predefined value.” Claim 1. Therefore, even in Starr,
when the frequency offset is compared to zero, a violation is only found
when the frequency offset is “greater than or equal to a non-zero predefined
value,” as recited in claim 1. See Ans. 7.
Third, Appellant argues that the offset violation disclosed in Starr is
not based on the individual signal level, but, instead, on the signal levels
relative to each other. App. Br. 5. Specifically, Appellant argues that, if
the phase frequency detector outputs a value of zero in Starr, a violation
does not occur even if the two signals are not zero. Id. Nevertheless, the
Appeal 2010-009407
Application 11/068,225
5

Examiner finds that Starr discloses that a violation occurs when the two
signals have an offset of anything but zero. Ans. 7. We do not discern error
in the Examiner’s conclusion, because what Starr discloses is what is recited
in Appellant’s claim 1, namely that a violation is only found when the
frequency offset is “greater than or equal to a non-zero predefined value.”
Claim 1.
We are not persuaded that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1 and
in rejecting claims 7, 13, and 19, not separately argued with particularity.
Therefore, we sustain the anticipation rejection of these claims.

ORDER
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1, 7, 13, and 19 is affirmed.
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

kis