Ex Parte Lida et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 2, 2016

12185832 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 2, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/185,832 08/05/2008
16759 7590 06/06/2016
Active Knowledge Ltd,
P.O. Box294
Kiryat Tivon, 36011
ISRAEL
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
EyranLida
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.
Va_LPPFl 1093
EXAMINER
PHUNG,LUAT
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2468
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/06/2016 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):
ari@activekn.com
gil@activekn.com
taltiber@gmail.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte BYRAN LIDA, A VI A VRAHAMI, ALON BENZARA Y,
NADA V BANET, MICHA RISLING, MASSAD EYAL,
and ZEEV BRUNIN
Appeal2015-001794
Application 12/185,832
Technology Center 2400
Before NORMAN H. BEAMER, SCOTT B. HOW ARD, and
JOHN D. HAMANN, Administrative Patent Judges.
HOW ARD, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants 1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a Final Rejection of
claims 1---6, 8-12, 17, 27-33, 35-39, 42, 43, and 45-52, which constitute all
of the claims pending in this application. Claims 13, 15, 16, and 40 are
objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim. Final Act. 14.
Claims 7, 14, 34, 41, and 44 have been cancelled. Claims 18-26 and 53-70
have been withdrawn. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm-in-part.
1 Appellants identify Valens Semiconductor Ltd. as the real party in interest.
Br. 3.
Appeal2015-001794
Application 12/185,832
THE INVENTION
The claimed invention is directed to a communication link with a
lower power functional mode. See generally Abstract, Spec. 2: 17--4:20.
Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject
matter:
1. A transceiver configured to operate according to different
modes of operation:
the transceiver is configured to operate according to a first
mode of operation in order to transmit in a first direction
bidirectional communication comprising data of at least two
types, over a certain wire comprised in a cable, wherein at least
one of the data types is uncompressed high definition digital
video and another data type is bidirectional data; the transceiver
is further configured to receive in a second direction, while
operating in the first mode of operation, data of the bidirectional
data type;
the transceiver is further configured to operate according
to a first low power partial functionality mode of operation in
order to transmit and receive bidirectional communication
comprising bidirectional data over the certain \'l1ire; and
the transceiver is further configured to transmit at least one
data type in the first mode of operation that is not transmitted in
the first low power partial functionality mode of operation;
wherein the ratio between power consumption of the
transceiver in the first mode of operation and the power
consumption of the transceiver in the first low power partial
functionality mode of operation is at least 3: 1.
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner as evidence in rejecting the
claims on appeal is:
Lyle US 7 ,295,578 B 1 Nov. 13, 2007
Diab US 2009/0154500 Al June 18, 2009
2
Appeal2015-001794
Application 12/185,832
REJECTIONS
Claims 1--4, 6, 8-12, 17, 27-32, 35-39, 42, 43, 45--47, 49, 51, and 52
stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Diab,
which claims priority to provisional application 61/014,323, hereinafter
"Diab Provisional Application" or "DP." Final Act. 7-13,
Claims 5, 33, 48, and 50 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Diab in view of Lyle. Final Act. 13-14.
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner's rejection in light of Appellants'
arguments that the Examiner erred. In reaching this decision, we consider
all evidence presented and all arguments made by Appellants.
Claims 1-6, 8-12, 17, 27-33, and 35-39
Appellants argue that although the Diab Provisional Application
discloses reducing the transmission rate, "reducing the transmission rate is
not equivalent to the Applicant's (sic) novel partial functionality operation,
which actively refrains from transmitting a certain data type while being in
the partial functionality." Br. 8. Therefore, according to Appellants, the
Diab Provisional does not disclose that "the transceiver is further configured
to transmit at least one data type in the first mode of operation that is not
transmitted in the first low power partial functionality mode of operation" as
recited in claim 1. Id.
The Examiner finds Diab teaches a transceiver that is "configured to
transmit at least one data type in the first mode of operation that is not
transmitted in the first low power partial functionality mode of operation" as
3
Appeal2015-001794
Application 12/185,832
recited in claim 1. Final Act. 8-9. The Examiner further finds the Diab
Provisional Application discloses "transmitting multimedia at higher data
rates while transmitting control or auxiliary data at lower data rates" and
therefore discloses the disputed claim limitation. Ans. 4 (citing Diab
Provisional Application Fig. 1, i-f 13).
Diab can only qualify as prior art for purposes of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C.
§ 102( e) if Diab is entitled to the benefit of the filing date of the Diab
Provisional Application filed on December 1 7, 2007. Diab is only given the
benefit of the earlier filing date if ( 1) the subject matter of Diab relied on by
the Examiner was disclosed in the Diab Provisional Application and (2) the
invention claimed in Diab is supported by a disclosure in the Diab
Provisional Application in compliance with§§ 112 and 120. See In re
Wertheim, 646 F.2d 527, 537 (CCPA 1981).
The Diab Provisional Application recites an example in which one
data type (multimedia data) is sent at a first data rate and a second data type
(control or auxiliary data associated with the multimedia content) is sent at a
second, lower data rate:
In various embodiments of the invention, the PHY devices
11 Oa and 11 Ob may comprise suitable logic, circuitry, and/ or
code that may enable transmission and/or reception at a high( er)
data in one direction and transmission and/or reception at a
low( er) data rate in the other direction. For example, the local
link partner 102 may comprise a multimedia server and the
remote link partner 104 may comprise a multimedia client. In
this regard, the local link partner 102 may transmit multimedia
data, for example, to the remote partner 104 at high(er) data
rates while the remote link partner 104 may transmit control or
auxiliary data associated with the multimedia content at
low( er) data rates.
4
Appeal2015-001794
Application 12/185,832
Diab Provisional Application if 13 (emphasis added). Although the Diab
Provisional Application describes a situation in which different data types
are transmitted at different data rates, the Diab Provisional Application does
not disclose that the transceiver is configured so that the multimedia data
type cannot be transmitted at the higher power level. Accordingly, based on
the record before us, we agree with Appellants that the Examiner erred in
finding the Diab Provisional Application discloses that "the transceiver is
further configured to transmit at least one data type in the first mode of
operation that is not transmitted in the first low power partial functionality
mode of operation" as recited in claim 1.
Accordingly, we are constrained on this record to reverse the
Examiner's rejection of claim 1, along with the rejections of claim 27 which
is argued on the same ground, and dependent claims 2---6, 8-12, 17, 28-33,
and 35-39.
Claims 42, 43, and 45-52
Appellants argue that although the Diab Provisional Application
teaches a reduced power mode, the techniques discussed in the Diab
Provisional Application "do not result in reducing the power consumption of
the link to 5% of its original power consumption." Br. 9. Accordingly,
Appellants argue the Diab Provisional Application does not disclose a
transceiver "configured to operate such that the ratio between power
consumption of the transceiver in the first mode of operation and power
consumption of the transceiver in the first low power partial functionality
mode of operation is at least 20:1" as recited in claim 42. Id.
5
Appeal2015-001794
Application 12/185,832
The Examiner finds that although Diab does not explicitly disclose a
20: 1 power consumption ratio, Diab teaches "multiple approaches to lower
power consumption." Final Act. 10-11, 13; see also Ans. 5-6. The
Examiner further finds "it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill
in the art at the time of the invention to implement [a 20: 1 power
consumption ratio] in the system of Diab in order to accommodate design
requirements, and to reduce the cost of operation." Final Act. 11, 13; see
also Ans. 6.
We are not persuaded of error based on Appellants' argument because
it does not address the reasoning relied on by the Examiner (Final Act. 10-
11, 13; Ans. 6) and, thus, does not adequately address the rejection on
appeal. Instead, because there is no evidence in the record that a 20: 1 power
consumption ratio would have been "uniquely challenging or difficult for
one of ordinary skill in the art," we agree with and adopt the Examiner's
findings and conclusions. See Leapfrog Enters., Inc. v. Fisher-Price, Inc.,
485 F.3d 1157, 1162 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (citing KSR Int'! Co. v. Teleflex Inc.,
550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007)).
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 42, along
with dependent claims 43 and 45-52, which are not argued separately.
DECISION
For the above reasons, we reverse the Examiner's rejection of claims
1---6, 8-12, 17, 27-33, and 35-39.
For the above reasons, we affirm the Examiner's rejection of claims
42, 43, and 45-52.
6
Appeal2015-001794
Application 12/185,832
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-IN-PART
7