Ex Parte Den Besten

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jul 16, 2014

11719540 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 16, 2014)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD

____________

Ex parte GERRIT W. DEN BESTEN
____________

Appeal 2011-010776
Application 11/719,540
Technology Center 2100
____________

Before ROBERT E. NAPPI, JOHN A. EVANS, and
LINZY T. McCARTNEY, Administrative Patent Judges.

McCARTNEY, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) the Examiner’s final
rejection of claims 1, 3-8, and 11-15. Claims 2, 9, and 10 have been
canceled. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
Appeal 2011-010776
Application 11/719,540

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants’ invention “relates to a bus communication system.”
(Spec. 1:1-2.) Claim 1 illustrates the claimed subject matter:
1. A bus communication system for serialized data
transmission comprising: a transmitter, a receiver, a plurality of
data lines, and a clock line, wherein
said transmitter is arranged for transmitting a first data
signal over a first one of the plurality of data lines and a second
data signal over a second one of the plurality of data lines;
said receiver is arranged for receiving said first and
second data signals from said first and second data lines,
characterized in that:
said clock line is arranged to provide a clock
signal, said plurality of data lines transmitting a data bit for
each transition of the clock signal, said clock line arranged to
transmit said clock signal as long as at least one of said
plurality of data lines is transmitting data from said data
signals;
said transmitter is arranged for transmitting a first
end of transmission signal over said first data line after
transmission of said first data signal is completed, and a second
end of transmission signal over said second data line after
transmission of said second data signal is completed; and
said receiver is arranged for receiving said first and
second end of transmission signals from said first and second
data lines.
REJECTIONS
Claims 1, 3-8, and 11-15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Awiszio (US 5,193,149; Mar. 9, 1993) and
Broedner (US 5,793,993; Aug. 11, 1998).
Appeal 2011-010776
Application 11/719,540

3
ISSUES
Appellant’s briefing raises the following two issues:
(1) Does Awiszio teach or suggest the “transmitter,” “receiver,” and
“plurality of data lines” recited in claim 1?
(2) Did the Examiner improperly combine the teachings of Awiszio
and Broedner when rejecting claim 1?1
ANALYSIS
Claim 1: “Transmitter,” Receiver,” and “Plurality of Data Lines”
Awiszio discloses the “dual-path computer interconnect system”
shown in Figure 1 below:

Figure 1: Dual-Path Computer Interconnect System
Awiszio teaches each CPU 10 depicted in Figure 1 can simultaneously
transmit packets to (and receive packets from) the other CPUs 10 via the

1 Because Appellant has argued the rejected claims together (see App
Br. 5-9), we have chosen to decide the appeal with respect to claim 1, see
37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii) (2011).
Appeal 2011-010776
Application 11/719,540

4
adapters 11, outgoing data lines 14, 16, incoming data lines 13, 15 and hubs
17, 18 shown in the figure. (See, e.g., Awiszio col. 5, ll. 7-18; Fig. 1.) The
Examiner found the adapters served as the “transmitters” and “receivers”
recited in claim 1, while the data lines satisfied claim 1’s “plurality of data
lines” element. (See Ans. 3-5.)
Appellant contends the Examiner has mischaracterized Awiszio.
According to Appellant, Awiszio does not teach or suggest two data lines
connecting the same transmitter and receiver as Appellant believes claim 1
requires. (App. Br. 5.) Rather, Awiszio discloses data lines connecting
multiple devices. (Id. at 6.)
We agree with the Examiner. Claim 1 does not require two data lines
connect the recited transmitter and receiver. Claim 1 simply requires a
transmitter transmit specified signals over first and second data lines, and a
receiver receive those signals. Nothing in claim 1 precludes a transmitter
from sending the recited signals to an intermediary that in turn transmits the
signals to the receiver as shown in Figure 1 above. We therefore sustain the
Examiner’s rejection of claim 1.
Propriety of the Proposed Combination
The Examiner acknowledged Awiszio did not explicitly disclose a
separate clock line “arranged to provide a clock signal” as recited in claim 1.
(Ans. 5.) But the Examiner found Broedner, a reference in the same field of
endeavor, taught this limitation. (Id.) The Examiner found one of skill in
the art would have been motivated to combine the teachings of Awiszio and
Broedner in the claimed manner “for the purpose of removing the need to
include a clock recovery circuit in each of the nodes, resulting in lower
overall cost of the computer system.” (Id.)
Appeal 2011-010776
Application 11/719,540

5
Appellant raises a number of challenges to this finding: First,
Appellant contends “[i]t is unclear how the secondary ’603[sic] reference
could possibly . . . suggest[] that two different hubs . . . would use a single
clock line.” (App. Br. 6.) Second, Appellant argues the Examiner’s
proposed combination would suffer from a number of technical problems,
some of which Appellant believes would render Awiszio’s invention
inoperable and unsuitable for its intended purpose. (See, e.g., id. at 7-9;
Reply Br. 2-4.) Third, given these alleged technical hurdles, Appellant
asserts the Examiner ignored the potential costs of the proposed combination
when the Examiner asserted one of skill in the art would have been
motivated to make the proposed modifications to “lower [the] overall cost of
the system.” (See, e.g., App. Br. 7-8; Reply Br. 3-5.)
We again agree with the Examiner. First, the Examiner was not
required to find a reason to combine Awiszio’s and Broedner’s teachings in
the references themselves. As the Supreme Court explained in KSR
International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., when determining whether a reason
existed to combine prior art teachings in the claimed manner, an examiner
“need not seek out precise teachings directed to the specific subject matter of
the challenged claim.” 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007). Rather, an examiner can
rely on, among other things, “the background knowledge possessed by a
person having ordinary skill in the art . . . . [and] the inferences and creative
steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ.” Id. Here, the
Examiner exercised such inferences, creativity, and background knowledge
when the Examiner reasoned one of skill in the art would have combined the
teachings of the cited art because it would lower the cost of the resulting
system. We therefore find this contention unpersuasive.
Appeal 2011-010776
Application 11/719,540

6
Second, Appellant’s arguments concerning the technical issues posed
by the proposed combination (and the alleged consequences of those issues)
rely heavily on speculative, unsupported attorney argument. We give little
weight to such arguments. Cf. In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1470 (Fed . Cir.
1997). Moreover, Appellant essentially argues Awiszio’s and Broedner’s
inventions are not physically combinable. But “[t]he test for obviousness is
not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily
incorporated into the structure of the primary reference . . . .” In re Keller,
642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981). “Rather, the test is what the combined
teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill
in the art.” Id. The Examiner concluded the teachings of Awiszio and
Broedner suggested the claimed invention, and Appellant’s arguments
regarding the technical feasibility of physically combining the teachings of
the cited art has not convinced us the Examiner erred.
Third, Appellant’s contentions about the potential costs of the
proposed combination are as speculative and unsupported as the arguments
just discussed and therefore equally as unconvincing. After reviewing the
Examiner’s rejection, we see no error in the Examiner’s rationale for the
proposed combination.
DECISION
We AFFRIM the rejections of claims 1, 3-8, and 11-15 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
No period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this
appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(1)(iv).

Appeal 2011-010776
Application 11/719,540

7
AFFIRMED

msc