Ex Parte James et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 20, 2012

11521711 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 20, 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.
11/521,711 09/14/2006 Robert James 70107.74 (2093-UT) 1755
27683 7590 12/21/2012
HAYNES AND BOONE, LLP
IP Section
2323 Victory Avenue
Suite 700
Dallas, TX 75219
EXAMINER
RHU, KRIS M
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2184
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/21/2012 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 PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
_____________

Ex parte ROBERT JAMES and DAVID CARR
_____________

Appeal 2010-008357
Application 11/521,711
Technology Center 2100
______________

Before, DAVID M. KOHUT, TREVOR M. JEFFERSON, and
JOHN G. NEW, Administrative Patent Judges.

KOHUT, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2010-008357
Application 11/521,711

2
This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the Final
Rejection of claims 1-10. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm the Examiner’s rejection of these claims.

INVENTION
The invention is directed to a method for transmitting a data frame
from a first to a second component. Spec. 5. Claim 1 is representative of
the invention and is reproduced below:
1. A method for transmitting a data frame from a first
component to a second component, the second component
having a data bus width for receiving data, the method
comprising:
identifying a set of data packets containing data bits to be
transmitted from the first component to the second component,
the first component and the second component being directly
connected to a same printed circuit board;
calculating a check-sum as a function of the data bits in the
data frame;
constructing the data frame to be transmitted, the data frame
having at least one packet containing header data, at least one
packet containing check-sum, and the set of data packets
containing data bits; and
transmitting the data frame to the second component such
that the data bits in the set of data packets are aligned to the
data bus width of the second component.

REFERENCES
Chilton US 6,317,805 B1 Nov. 12, 2001

Ganesh US 6,553,000 B1 Apr. 22, 2003

Hufferd US 2004/0139244 A1 July 15, 2004

Appeal 2010-008357
Application 11/521,711

3
REJECTIONS AT ISSUE
Claims 1-2, 4, and 6-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being
anticipated by Hufferd. Ans. 3-7.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable
over the combination of Hufferd and Chilton. Ans. 7-8.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable
over the combination of Hufferd and Ganesh. Ans. 8-9.

ISSUE
Did the Examiner err in finding that Hufferd discloses the first
component and the second component being directly connected to a single
printed circuit board, as recited in claim 1?

ANALYSIS
Claim 1
Appellants argue that Hufferd does not disclose a first and second
component being directly connected to a single printed circuit board because
Hufferd’s storage controller and hard disk drive are connected to different
printed circuit boards, as shown in Figure 1. App. Br. 12. However, we
agree with the Examiner that the claim language is very broad. Ans. 10. As
such, we find that the Examiner’s interpretation of the claim language as
“one component being mounted on a printed circuit board and the other
component being coupled to the same circuit board” is reasonable. Ans. 10.
There is nothing in the claim that precludes the devices from being on
different circuit boards as long as they are directly coupled to one another.
As such, the Examiner finds that Hufferd discloses a storage controller is
Appeal 2010-008357
Application 11/521,711

4
embedded on a computer motherboard and the hard disk drive is coupled to
storage controller. Ans. 10. Thus, the Examiner finds that the hard disk
drive and the storage controller are directly coupled to the same printed
circuit board, as required by the claim. Ans. 10.
Appellants additionally argue that the devices are not directly coupled
to the same printed circuit board because the hard disk drive is coupled to
the motherboard through an Ethernet connection. Reply Br. 5. We are not
persuaded by this argument as the claim does not preclude the use of a cable
to directly connect the two devices. As such, we agree with the Examiner’s
finding (Ans. 10) that the hard disk drive is directly coupled to the
motherboard even if the direct connection is through an Ethernet connection.
For the reasons stated supra, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of
claim 1.1
Claims 2-10
Regarding claims 2-10, Appellants make the same arguments with
respect to these claims as with respect to claim 1. App. Br. 13-16; Reply Br.
6-9. As such, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 2-10 for the
reasons indicated supra with respect to claim 1.

1 Appellants argue in the Reply Brief on page 5 that Hufferd does not
disclose “transmit[ting] the data frame to the second component such that
the data bits in the set of data packets are aligned to the data bus of the
second component.” This argument raises a new issue not presented before
in the Appeal Brief and will, therefore, not be considered. See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.41(a)(2).
Appeal 2010-008357
Application 11/521,711

5
CONCLUSION
The Examiner did not err in finding that Hufferd discloses the first
component and the second component being connected to a single printed
circuit board, as recited in claim 1.

SUMMARY
The Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1-10 is affirmed.
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)(iv).
AFFIRMED

msc