Ex Parte Heinen et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 17, 2018

13646789 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 17, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/646,789 10/08/2012
18052 7590 12/19/2018
Eschweiler & Potashnik, LLC
Rosetta Center
629 Euclid Ave., Suite 1000
Cleveland, OH 44114
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Stefan Heinen
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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
IMCP278US 8710
EXAMINER
OCHOA, JUAN CARLOS
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2127
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/19/2018 ELECTRONIC
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.
Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the
following e-mail address(es):
docketing@eschweilerlaw.com
inteldocs _ docketing@cpaglobal.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte STEP AN HEINEN, JUERGEN BROCK,
SINDHURA RADHAKRISHNAN, RAJSHEKHAR N. P ARAGOND,
SHRINIV AS RAO K. GOWDE, RAGU T. RAMACHANDRARAO,
JONAS HOELSCHER, and GORAN MAGERL
Appeal2018-005145
Application 13/646,789
Technology Center 2100
Before MAHSHID D. SAADAT, ALLEN R. MacDONALD, and
JOHN P. PINKERTON, Administrative Patent Judges.
SAADAT, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants 1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
Final Rejection of claims 1-14 and 23-30. Claims 15-22 were cancelled.
We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Intel Deutschland
GmbH. App. Br. 1.
Appeal2018-005145
Application 13/646,789
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants' invention relates to simulation and verification of a
system on chip using a layered verification approach. Spec. ,r 17.
Exemplary claim 1 under appeal reads as follows:
1. A verification system for an integrated device comprising:
a plurality of detailed subsystem virtual prototypes
including core functionality simulation information, wherein the
integrated device comprises a plurality of subsystems, and
wherein each subsystem of the plurality of subsystems is
associated with a detailed subsystem virtual prototype of the
plurality of detailed subsystem virtual prototypes;
a fast system virtual prototype having a plurality of fast
subsystem virtual prototypes including overall integration
functionality simulation information, wherein each subsystem of
the plurality of subsystems is associated with a fast subsystem
virtual prototype of the plurality of fast subsystem virtual
prototypes; and
a test controller configured to test lower layer functionality
of the integrated device and the plurality of subsystems using the
detailed subsystem virtual prototypes and to test higher layer
functionality of the integrated device and the plurality of
subsystems using the fast system virtual prototype and the fast
subsystem virtual prototypes, wherein the lower layer
functionality comprises functionality of a physical layer, and
wherein the higher layer functionality comprises functionality of
a higher layer than the physical layer.
REFERENCES and REJECTIONS
Claims 1-5, 7, 9, 13, 14, 23-27, and 29 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Kennedy et al. (US 8,521,092 B2;
issued August 27, 2013) ("Kennedy"), and Butts et al. (US 7,792,933 B2;
issued September 7, 2010) ("Butts"). See Final Act. 3-14.
2
Appeal2018-005145
Application 13/646,789
Claims 6, 11, 12, and 28 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as
unpatentable over Kennedy, Butts, and Kennedy et al. (US 9,148,808 B2;
issued September 29, 2015) ("Kennedy (2)"). See Final Act. 14--16.
Claim 10 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as unpatentable
over Kennedy, Butts and Kim et al. (US 9,015,019 Bl; issued April 21,
2015) ("Kim"). See Final Act. 16-17.
Claims 8 and 30 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as
unpatentable over Kennedy, Butts, Kim, and Ottinger et al.
(US 2006/0140125 Al; published June 29, 2006) ("Ottinger"). See Final
Act. 17-18.
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner's rejections in light of Appellants'
arguments in Appellants' Appeal Brief and Reply Brief that the Examiner
has erred. We are unpersuaded by Appellants' contentions and concur with
the findings and conclusions reached by the Examiner as explained below.
Independent Claim 1
Appellants contend the combination of cited references fails to teach
or suggest "a plurality of detailed subsystem virtual prototypes including
core functionality simulation information, wherein the integrated device
comprises a plurality of subsystems, and wherein each subsystem of the
plurality of subsystems is associated with a detailed subsystem virtual
prototype of the plurality of detailed subsystem virtual prototypes," "a fast
system virtual prototype having a plurality of fast subsystem virtual
prototypes including overall integration functionality simulation
information, wherein each subsystem of the plurality of subsystems is
3
Appeal2018-005145
Application 13/646,789
associated with a fast subsystem virtual prototype of the plurality of fast
subsystem virtual prototypes," and "a test controller configured to test lower
layer functionality of the integrated device and the plurality of subsystems
using the detailed subsystem virtual prototypes and to test higher layer
functionality of the integrated device and the plurality of subsystems using
the fast system virtual prototype and the fast subsystem virtual prototypes,
wherein the lower layer functionality comprises functionality of a physical
layer, and wherein the higher layer functionality comprises functionality
of a higher layer than the physical layer," as recited in independent claim 1,
and similarly recited in independent claim 23. See App. Br. 4.
More specifically, Appellants contend Kennedy is silent regarding
individual subsystems of integrated devices and virtual prototypes associated
with the subsystems, and, thus, Kennedy fails to teach or suggest the
aforementioned elements of claim 1 and similar elements of claim 23. See
App. Br. 5---6; see also Reply Br. 3--4. This contention is not persuasive
because it attacks the references individually and does not address the
combination of references. In fact, one cannot show non-obviousness by
attacking references individually when the rejection is based on a
combination of references. See In re Merck & Co., Inc., 800 F.2d 1091,
1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986); see also In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425
(CCP A 1981 ). Here, the Examiner relied upon Butts for teaching or
suggesting the claimed "plurality of subsystems" and the claimed
"[associated] detailed subsystem virtual prototypes." See Final Act. 5 (citing
Butts 4:54--55, 7:29-33); see also Ans. 5. Appellants' contention fails to
address the combination of references ( specifically fails to address Butts),
and, thus, is not persuasive of Examiner error.
4
Appeal2018-005145
Application 13/646,789
Appellants further contend Butts fails to disclose lower or higher
functionality of an integrated device and its plurality of subsystems, and
thus, fails to teach or suggest the aforementioned claimed "test controller"
recited in claim 1 and similarly recited in claim 23. See App. Br. 7; see also
Reply Br. 5---6. This contention is not persuasive either because it also
attacks the references individually and does not address the combination of
references. The Examiner relied upon both Kennedy and Butts for teaching
or suggesting the claimed "test controller." See Final Act. 3--4 (citing
Kennedy 2:19-28, 9:30-56, 11:44--47), 6 (citing Butts 2:46-54; 4:22-27,
4:54--55, 5: 11-26, 7:43--46); see also Ans. 8-9. Appellants' contention fails
to address the combination of references (specifically fails to address the
Examiner's finding that Kennedy teaches the claimed "lower layer
functionality" and the claimed "higher layer functionality"), and, thus, is not
persuasive of Examiner error.
Thus, we agree with the Examiner that the combination of cited
references teaches or suggests all the elements of claim 1. Therefore, we
sustain the rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
Independent Claim 23
Appellants additionally contend the combination of cited references
fails to teach or suggest "wherein the test controller is configured to
simultaneously test the fast system virtual prototype and the plurality of fast
subsystem virtual prototypes," as recited in independent claim 23. See App.
Br. 8. More specifically, Appellants contend the Office Action cites Butts as
teaching the aforementioned claim element, but Butts (as well as Kennedy)
is silent as to simultaneous testing. See id. In response, the Examiner finds
that Kennedy discloses simultaneous testing. See Ans. 13-14 ( citing
5
Appeal2018-005145
Application 13/646,789
Kennedy 10:27-54). In their Reply Brief, Appellants contend Kennedy also
fails to teach the aforementioned claim element because Kennedy fails to
disclose a fast system virtual prototype or a plurality of fast subsystem
virtual prototypes. See Reply Br. 7.
We agree with the Examiner's finding that Kennedy teaches or
suggests simultaneous testing of a virtual wireless channel and a wireless
transceiver unit. See Kennedy 10:27-54. Thus, we agree with the
Examiner's finding that the combination of Kennedy and Butts teaches the
aforementioned claim element. Appellants' contention that Kennedy and
Butts each fail to teach argued features is not persuasive because it attacks
the references individually rather than the combination of references. More
specifically, Appellants' contention that Kennedy fails to disclose the
claimed "fast system virtual prototype" or "plurality of fast subsystem
virtual prototypes" criticizes Kennedy for failing to teach or suggest features
that the Examiner relied upon Butts as teaching or suggesting. See Final
Act. 5-6 (citing Butts 7:29-23).
Thus, we agree with the Examiner that the combination of cited
references teaches or suggests all the elements of claim 23. Therefore, we
sustain the rejection of claim 23 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
Remaining Claims
No separate arguments are presented for the remaining dependent
claims. See App. Br. 4--8. We therefore sustain their rejections for the
reasons stated with respect to independent claims 1 and 23.
6
Appeal2018-005145
Application 13/646,789
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner's rejection of claims 1-14 and 23-30 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED
7