Ex Parte Landers et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 28, 2013

11470825 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 28, 2013)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte JOHN DAVID LANDERS, JR. and DAVID JOHN STEINER
____________

Appeal 2010-008711
Application 11/470,825
Technology Center 2100
____________

Before MARC S. HOFF, JEFFREY S. SMITH, and JOHN A. EVANS,
Administrative Patent Judges.

SMITH, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal 2010-008711
Application 11/470,825

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, 2, 5-8, 21-25, and 27-30. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.

Representative Claim
1. A data processing system for performing the functions of a
Peripheral Component Interconnect Express feature card remotely from the
data processing system, the data processing system comprising:
a circuit board comprising a dedicated connection socket configured
to have a Peripheral Component Interconnect Express feature card directly
connected to the dedicated connection socket;
a Peripheral Component Interconnect Express feature card remotely
located in comparison to the circuit board and appearing architecturally to
the circuit board to be located at the circuit board and to be directly
connected to the dedicated connection socket;
a plurality of input/output devices, each of the plurality of
input/output devices connected to the Peripheral Component Interconnect
Express feature card via one of a plurality of lanes of the Peripheral
Component Interconnect Express feature card, wherein each of the plurality
of lanes is a serial signal channel.

Prior Art
Yamakawa US 2002/0116217 A1 Aug. 22, 2002
Nouri US 6,484,213 B1 Nov. 19, 2002
Anderson US 2005/0190536 A1 Sep. 1, 2005

Examiner’s Rejections
Claims 1, 8, 21, 25, 29, and 30 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §
102(b) as being anticipated by Anderson.
Appeal 2010-008711
Application 11/470,825

3
Claims 2, 27, and 28 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Anderson and Yamakawa.
Claims 5-7 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Anderson, Yamakawa, and Nouri.
Claims 22-24 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Anderson and Nouri.

ANALYSIS
Claim 1 recites “a Peripheral Component Interconnect Express feature
card remotely located in comparison to the circuit board and appearing
architecturally to the circuit board to be located at the circuit board and to be
directly connected to the dedicated connection socket.” The Examiner finds
that the circuit board of the expansion unit 216 shown in Figure 2 of
Anderson describes the PCI Express feature card because it connects to a
PCI Express slot via the PCI Express connection. Ans. 8. Appellants
contend that the expansion unit communicates via the PCI Express
connection, but does not include a Peripheral Component Interconnect
Express feature card. Br. 11.
We agree with Appellants. The Examiner has not provided persuasive
evidence or argument to establish that the circuit board of the expansion unit
216 shown in Figure 2 of Anderson is a PCI Express feature card.
Independent claim 21 contains a limitation similar to that of claim 1
for which the rejection fails. We do not sustain the rejection of independent
claims 1 and 21, and corresponding dependent claims 2, 5-8, 22-25, and
27-30.

Appeal 2010-008711
Application 11/470,825

4
DECISION
The rejection of claims 1, 8, 21, 25, 29, and 30 under 35 U.S.C. §
102(b) as being anticipated by Anderson is reversed.
The rejection of claims 2, 27, and 28 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Anderson and Yamakawa is reversed.
The rejection of claims 5-7 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Anderson, Yamakawa, and Nouri is reversed.
The rejection of claims 22-24 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Anderson and Nouri is reversed.

REVERSED

babc