Ex Parte DVIR et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Apr 26, 2017

13584163 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 26, 2017)

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.
3875.5160001 1784
EXAMINER
AHN, SUNG S
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2631
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
13/584,163 08/13/2012 Amiad DVIR
26111 7590 04/26/2017
STERNE, KESSLER, GOLDSTEIN & FOX P.L.L.C.
1100 NEW YORK AVENUE, N.W.
WASHINGTON, DC 20005
04/26/2017 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 AMIAD DVIR, RAVIV WEBER, DAVID AVISHAI,
ALEX GOLDSTEIN, IGOR ELKANOVLCH, GAL SITTON, and
MICHAEL BALTER
Appeal 2015-005888
Application 13/584,1631
Technology Center 2600
Before JEAN R. HOMERE, ST. JOHN COURTENAY III, and
SCOTT E. BAIN, Administrative Patent Judges.
BAIN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
Final Rejection of claims 1—9, 11—23, and 27—29. Claims 10 and 24—26
have been cancelled. App. Br. 18—23 (Claims App’x). We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
1 Appellants identify Broadcom Corporation as the real party in interest.
App. Br. 3.
Appeal 2015-005888
Application 13/584,163
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The Claimed Invention
The claimed invention relates to burst mode clock and data recovery
(“BCDR”) circuits for enhancing the efficiency of data transfer in passive
optical networks (“PONs”). Spec. Tflf 2—3. Claims 1,11, and 16 are
independent. Claim 1 is illustrative of the invention and the subject matter
of the appeal, and reads as follows (with the disputed limitations
emphasized):
1. A clock and data recovery (CDR) system, comprising:
an over-sampler configured to oversample a data signal
according to a plurality of sampling clock signals to provide a
plurality of over-sampled data streams;
a phase interpolator configured to generate the plurality of
sampling clock signals, the plurality of sampling clock signals
being phase shifted based upon phase information corresponding
to an estimated phase of the data signal;
a pipeline configured to select an oversampled datastream
from among the plurality of oversampled datastreams based on a
phase accuracy of a sampling clock signal from among the
plurality of sampling clock signals in response to a detection
signal; and
a detector configured to count a number of bit transitions
of the over-sampled datastream over an interval of time and to
generate the detection signal when the number of bit transitions
is within a predefined threshold.
App. Br. 18 (Claims App’x).
2
Appeal 2015-005888
Application 13/584,163
The Rejections on Appeal
Claims 1, 2, 5, 7, 8, 11, 12, 15, and 16 stand rejected on the ground of
obviousness-type double patenting over claims 1, 4, 8, 12, 16, 18, and 21 of
U.S. Patent No. 8,243,869. Final Act. 3—5.
Claims 1—4, 21, and 27 stand rejected under pre-AIA
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Yajima et al. (US 2007/0030937
Al; Feb. 8, 2007) (“Yajima”), Tamura (US 2007/0064850 Al; Mar. 22,
2007), and Romero et al. (US 5,376,975; Dec. 27, 1994) (“Romero”). Final
Act. 6-11.
Claims 5—8 stand rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Yajima, Tamura, Romero, and Dalton (US 2007/0122159
Al; May 31, 2007). Final Act. 11-15.
Claims 11—15, 22, and 28 stand rejected under pre-AIA
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Yajima, Tamura, Romero, and
Dalton, and Nguyen (US 2003/0002587 Al; Jan. 2, 2003). Final Act. 15—
23.
Claims 16 and 29 stand rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Yajima and Romero. Final Act. 23—25.
Claims 17, 19, 20, and 23 stand rejected under pre-AIA
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Yajima, Romero, and Tamura.
Final Act. 25—28.
Claims 9 and 18 stand rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Yajima, Tamura, Romero, and Nguyen. Final Act. 29-30.
3
Appeal 2015-005888
Application 13/584,163
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellants’
arguments presented in this appeal. Arguments which Appellants could
have made but did not make in the Briefs are deemed to be waived. See
37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv). On the record before us, we are not persuaded
the Examiner erred. We adopt as our own the findings and reasons set forth
in the rejections from which the appeal is taken and in the Examiner’s
Answer, and provide the following for highlighting and emphasis.
Obviousness-Type Double Patenting Rejection
Appellants request the Examiner “hold in abeyance” the double
patenting rejection, App. Br. 7, but the Examiner has maintained the
rejection. Ans. 2. Appellants do not otherwise contest the obviousness-type
double patenting rejection. We, therefore, summarily sustain the double
patenting rejection of claims 1, 2, 5, 7, 8, 11, 12, 15, and 16. See Hyatt v.
Dudas, 551 F.3d 1307, 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (“When the appellant fails to
contest a ground of rejection to the Board,... the Board may treat any
argument with respect to that ground of rejection as waived.”).
Obviousness Rejection of Claims 1—4, 21, and 27
Regarding claim 1, Appellants argue the Examiner erred in finding the
prior art teaches or suggests “a detector configured to count a number of bit
transitions” and generate a detection signal “when the number of bit
transitions is within a predefined threshold,” as recited in claim 1. App. Br.
7—12 (emphasis added); Reply Br. 2—4. Specifically, Appellants contend
that although Yajima and Romero teach “alternating” or transitioning bits, at
most the references (and particularly Romero) merely teach “correlating”
these bits to known “preamble bit[s]” and not “counting” the number of
4
Appeal 2015-005888
Application 13/584,163
transitions to generate a detection signal. App. Br. 12. Appellants
emphasize that “correlating” is “fundamentally different from counting” as
recited in claim 1. Id. We disagree.
As the Examiner finds, one of ordinary skill in the art would
understand Romero’s teaching of “correlating” bit transitions to known
signals as including “counting” the bit transitions. Ans. 5 (citing Romero
Fig. 1, 5, col. 2,11. 52—65, col. 6,11. 3—22). For example, Romero expressly
states “[u]pon correlating a number of alternating zero and one bits [i.e., bit
transitions] . . . within a certain bit error count (e.g., two), the preamble
detector 105 provides a[n] [error detection] signal to the processor 114.”
Romero col. 2,11. 62—65 (emphasis added). As the Examiner finds,
correlating “a number” means the number (count) is determined, and
therefore that the bit transitions are counted, just as in Appellants’ claim 1.
Id. We, therefore, are not persuaded of error in the Examiner’s finding that
the cited combination of references teaches the limitations of claim 1.
Appellants argue dependent claims 2 and 3 separately from claim 1,
contending that in addition to the deficiencies regarding the Examiner’s
rejection of claim 1, the prior art also fails to teach the phase interpolator is
configured to “phase shift the plurality of sampling clock signals by a factor
proportional to the reference clock signal” as recited in dependent claim 2,
and the factor is “reciprocaF of sampling clock signals as recited in claim 3
(which depends from claim 2). App. Br. 13 (emphasis added). Appellants
contend Tamura lacks any teaching or suggestion of the claimed phase shift
factors. Id. We, however, are unpersuaded of error.
The Examiner relies not on Tamura alone, but on the combination of
Yajima with Tamura and Romero as teaching the limitations of dependent
5
Appeal 2015-005888
Application 13/584,163
claims 2 and 3. Ans. 6—7. Specifically, the Examiner finds, and we agree,
Yajima teaches “multi-phase clocks” with various phase shift “factor[s]”
proportional to the reference clock signal, and Tamura further teaches
generating a plurality of phase shifted clocks at various factors “from the
reference clock,” including reciprocal factors. Id. (citing Yajima Fig. 7,
21, 25, 61; Tamura Fig. 7, 22, || 11, 22, 142). Appellants’ argument
attacking the references (and particularly Tamura) individually does not,
therefore, persuade us of error. See, e.g., In re Merck & Co., Inc., 800 F.2d
1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986).2 * * * 6
Appellants do not argue dependent claims 4, 21, and 27 separately.
We, therefore, find no error in the rejection of those claims for the foregoing
reasons.
Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, we sustain the rejection of
claims 1—4, 21, and 27 as obvious over Yajima, Tamura, and Romero.
Remaining Obviousness Rejections
Appellants argue the obviousness rejections of independent claims 11
and 16 are erroneous “for at least the same reasons as discussed with respect
to independent claim 1.” App. Br. 14—15. Because we are not persuaded the
2 Appellants also argue, for the first time in the Reply Brief (and not in
response to arguments in the Examiner’s Answer), that the Examiner erred
in finding the rationale to combine Yajima with Tamura for purposes of
rejecting claims 2 and 3 “is the same as that used in the rejection of claim 1.”
Reply Br. 5. This argument, however, is untimely raised and Appellants
have not argued good cause for the untimeliness. See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.41(b)(2). We, therefore, consider the argument waived.
6
Appeal 2015-005888
Application 13/584,163
Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1, Appellants argument regarding claims
11 and 16 also does not persuade us of error.
The remaining rejections relate to dependent claims, for which
Appellants argue the respective, additional cited references “do not cure the
deficiencies” regarding rejection of the base claims. App. Br. 14—16.
Because we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in rejecting independent
claims 1,11, and 16, we are unpersuaded of error in the rejections of the
remaining dependent claims.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejections of
claims 5—9, 11—20, 22, 23, 28, and 29.
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s rejections of claims 1—9, 11—23, and 27—29.
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). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.50(f).
AFFIRMED
7