Ex Parte Henrion et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Oct 25, 2012

11199431 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 25, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte CARSON D. HENRION and DANIEL A. BERKRAM
____________

Appeal 2010-005452
Application 11/199,431
Technology Center 2600
____________

Before JOSEPH F. RUGGIERO, JEFFREY S. SMITH, and JEREMY J.
CURCURI, Administrative Patent Judges.

SMITH, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal 2010-005452
Application 11/199,431

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s final
rejection of claims 1-10 and 22. Claim 14 has been canceled. The Examiner
objected to claims 11-13 and 15-21 (Final Rej. 7-8). We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.

Representative Claim
1. A method of serializing a data stream, the method comprising:

passing a series of data words from a source in a first clock domain to
a serializer in a second clock domain, wherein said serializer divides each of
said data words into a plurality of portions for serial transmission, each
portion comprising a plurality of bits;

passing valid signals from said source to said serializer indicating
when each of said series of data words is available from said source; and

synchronizing said serializer and said source based on a first of said
valid signals.

Prior Art
Chang US 2003/0043943 A1 Mar. 6, 2003
Wise US 2003/0196078 A1 Oct. 16, 2003
Wang US 6,686,856 B1 Feb. 3, 2004
Przybysz US 2006/0112293 A1 May 25, 2006
(filed Nov. 23, 2004)

Examiner’s Rejections
Claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 7-10, and 22 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over Chang and Przybysz.
Appeal 2010-005452
Application 11/199,431

3
Claim 3 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Chang, Przybysz, and Wang.
Claim 6 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Chang, Przybysz, and Wise.

Claim Groupings
Based on Appellants arguments in the Appeal Brief, we will decide
the appeal on the basis of claim 1.

ANALYSIS
Claim 1 recites “passing valid signals from said source to said
serializer indicating when each of said series of data words is available from
said source.” Appellants contend that Chang does not teach indicating
whether a valid data signal is ready to be latched. App. Br. 6. The
Examiner finds that Przybysz teaches “passing valid signals from said
source to said serializer indicating when each of said series of data words is
available from said source” as recited in claim 1. Final Rej. 3-4, Ans. 4, 9.
Appellants have not provided persuasive evidence or argument to rebut the
Examiner’s finding.
Appellants contend that there is no evidence that Przybysz’s data
ready signal is passed from a data word source as is Appellants’ claimed
valid signals. According to Appellants, paragraph 29 of Przybysz only states
“[a] data ready signal is coupled to the interface block 110.” Appellants also
contend that there is only one data ready signal in Przybysz instead of
multiple valid signals as in claim 1. Appellants contend that Przybysz’s
cited data ready signal indicates when data is ready for an output parallel
Appeal 2010-005452
Application 11/199,431

4
data bus instead of indicating “when each of said series of data words is
available from said source” as in claim 1. Reply Br. 3.
These arguments are presented for the first time in the Reply Brief.
Appellants could have presented these arguments in the Appeal Brief, such
that we would have had benefit of the Examiner’s evaluation of the
argument in the responsive Answer. Appellants do not explain what good
cause there might be to consider the new arguments. Appellants’ new
arguments are thus untimely and have, accordingly, not been considered.
See Ex parte Borden, 93 USPQ2d 1473 (BPAI 2010) (informative).
We agree with the Examiner that paragraphs 17, 29, and 37 of
Pryzbysz, along with Figures 1, 2A, 3, and 4 discussed in paragraph 37,
teach “passing valid signals from said source to said serializer indicating
when each of said series of data words is available from said source.”
We sustain the rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103. Appellants
have not presented arguments for separate patentability of claims 2-10 and
22 which fall with claim 1.

DECISION
The rejection of claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 7-10, and 22 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Chang and Przybysz is affirmed.
The rejection of claim 3 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Chang, Przybysz, and Wang is affirmed.
The rejection of claim 6 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Chang, Przybysz, and Wise is affirmed.
Appeal 2010-005452
Application 11/199,431

5
No time 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.
§ 41.50(f).

AFFIRMED

rwk