Ex Parte Ede

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jun 18, 2012

10732063 (B.P.A.I. Jun. 18, 2012)

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.
10/732,063 12/10/2003 Clifford Ede 851.0002.U1(US) 6404
10948 7590 06/19/2012
Harrington & Smith, Attorneys At Law, LLC
4 Research Drive, Suite 202
Shelton, CT 06484
EXAMINER
STIGLIC, RYAN M
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2111
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/19/2012 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 BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte CLIFFORD EDE
____________

Appeal 2010-001832
Application 10/732,063
Technology Center 2100
____________

Before JOSEPH L. DIXON, LANCE L. BARRY, and
JOHN A. JEFFERY, Administrative Patent Judges.

BARRY, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The Patent Examiner rejected claims 1-12, 15, 22-33, 37-40, 42, 44,
and 46-63. (Ans. 4.) The Appellant appeals therefrom under 35 U.S.C. §
134(a). We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).

Appeal 2010-001832
Application 10/732,063

2
INVENTION
The following claim illustrates the invention on appeal.
1. An apparatus, comprising:
a power signal contact having an associated impedance;
at least one data signal contact;
a transceiver configured to supply power and data to a
peripheral device through the power signal contact and the at
least one data signal contact;
a sensor configured to automatically sense a discrete
change in impedance associated with the power signal contact
and configured to provide to the transceiver a signal indicative
of the discrete change in the impedance associated with the
power signal contact, wherein the transceiver is configured to
provide to a host device the signal indicative of the discrete
change in the impedance associated with the power signal
contact, the signal, when the power signal contact is not in
use to provide power, being interpreted as a disconnection of
the peripheral device from the apparatus, the apparatus being
configured for serial data communication.

REJECTION
Claims 1-12, 15, 22-33, 37-40, 42, 44 and 46-63 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over US Patent No. 7,103,381 B1
("Wright"), On-The-Go Supplement to the USB 2.0 Specification ("USB
OTG"), Appellant's Admitted Prior Art ("AAPA"), and US Patent
Application Publication No. 2003/0146765 A1 ("Darshan").

DISCUSSION
Based on the dependencies of the claims, we will decide the appeal of
the obviousness rejection of claims 1-12, 15, 22-33, 37-40, 42, 44, and 46-63
Appeal 2010-001832
Application 10/732,063

3
on the basis of independent claims 1, 26, 32, 33, 40, and 44. Therefore, the
issue before us follows.
Did the Examiner err in concluding that the combined teachings of
Wright and Darshan would have suggested a sensor providing a transceiver a
signal indicative of a discrete change in the impedance or capacitance
associated with a power signal contact, as required by independent claims 1,
26, 32, 33, 40, and 44?
"The test for obviousness is what the combined teachings of the
references would have suggested to one of ordinary skill in the art." In re
Young, 927 F.2d 588, 591 (Fed. Cir. 1991) (citing In re Keller, 642 F.2d
413, 425 (CCPA 1981)).
Here, the Examiner finds that "the combination of Wright and
Darshan provides the 'signal indicative . . .' internal to the transceiver."
(Ans. 35-36.)
We agree with the Appellant, however, that "'a transceiver,' and . . . 'a
sensor[]'," (Reply Br. 9), "are recited as [two] distinct elements." (Id.) We
further agree that "[i]f the sensor were internal to the transceiver [as
proposed by the Examiner], there would be no recitation that the sensor is
configured to provide to the transceiver . . . a signal." (Id.)
Furthermore, the Examiner does not allege, let alone show, that the
addition of the other applied references cures the aforementioned deficiency
of Darshan and Wright.
Therefore, we conclude that the Examiner did err in concluding that
combined teachings of Wright and Darshan would have suggested a sensor
providing a transceiver a signal indicative of a discrete change in the
Appeal 2010-001832
Application 10/732,063

4
impedance or capacitance associated with a power signal contact, as required
by independent claims 1, 26, 32, 33, 40, and 44.

DECISION
We reverse the rejection of claims 1, 26, 32, 33, 40, and 44 and that of
claims 2-12, 15, 22-25, 27-31, 37-39, 42, and 46-63, which depend
therefrom.
REVERSED

peb