Ex Parte MAUNG et al

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Apr 1, 2019

14935082 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Apr. 1, 2019)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
14/935,082 11/06/2015
23494 7590 04/03/2019
TEXAS INSTRUMENTS IN CORPORA TED
PO BOX 655474, MIS 3999
DALLAS, TX 75265
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Win Naing MAUNG
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.
TI-75632 3416
EXAMINER
CLEARY, THOMAS J
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2185
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
04/03/2019 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):
uspto@ti.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte WIN NAING MAUNG, SUZANNE MARY VINING,
and NIRAV JAY ANTI PATEL
Appeal2018-007672
Application 14/935,082
Technology Center 2100
Before JENNIFER S. BISK, LARRY J. HUME, and
JULIET MITCHELL DIRBA, Administrative Patent Judges.
DIRBA, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL 1
Appellants2 seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the
Examiner's rejection of claims 1 and 3-20. We have jurisdiction under 35
U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
1 This Decision uses the following abbreviations: "Spec." for the original
specification, filed Nov. 6, 2015, claiming the benefit of an earlier filed
provisional application; "Final Act." for the Final Office Action, mailed
Nov. 20, 2017; "Br." for Appellants' Appeal Brief, filed Mar. 20, 2018; and
"Ans." for Examiner's Answer, mailed Apr. 11, 2018.
2 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Texas Instruments
Inc. Br. 1.
Appeal2018-007672
Application 14/935,082
BACKGROUND
Appellants' disclosed embodiments and claimed invention relate to
using a bridge to communicatively couple two hosts. Spec. ,r 11; Abstract.
Claim 10, reproduced below, is representative of the claimed subject matter:
10. An apparatus, comprising:
a multiport hub;
a single bridge configured to communicatively couple together
a plurality of hosts and to emulate a slave device to each such
host;
a plurality of connection ports; and
a configurable data path network coupled to the multiport hub,
the single bridge, and the plurality of connection ports, wherein
the configurable data path network is configured to selectively
provide:
for a connection port for which a host is detected, data
communications through the single bridge between the
multiport hub and the connection port; and
for a connection port for which no host is detected, data
communications between the multiport hub and the
connection port that bypass the single bridge.
Br. 11 (Claims App'x).
THE REJECTIONS
RI. Claims 10 and 16-18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ I02(a)(2) as anticipated by Voto (US 2015/0089092 Al, filed Sep. 16,
2014, published Mar. 26, 2015). Final Act. 3--4.
R2. Claims 1, 3-6, 8, 9, 11-14, and 20 stand rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over Voto and LeToumeur (US 8,447,890 Bl,
issued May 21, 2013). Final Act. 5-11.
2
Appeal2018-007672
Application 14/935,082
R3. Claim 7, 15, and 19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
obvious over Voto, LeToumeur, and "knowledge commonly known in the
art and admitted by Applicant to be prior art." Final Act. 12-16.
ANALYSIS
We review the appealed rejections for error based upon the issues
identified by Appellants, and in light of the arguments and evidence
produced thereon. Ex parte Frye, 94 USPQ2d 1072, 1075 (BPAI 2010)
(precedential). To the extent Appellants have not advanced separate,
substantive arguments for particular claims, or other issues, such arguments
are waived. 37 C.F.R. § 4I.37(c)(l)(iv).
We have considered all of Appellants' arguments and any evidence
presented. We highlight and address specific findings and arguments for
emphasis in our analysis below.
Anticipation Rejection RI of Claims 10 and 16--18
Claim 10 recites: "a single bridge configured to communicatively
couple together a plurality of hosts and to emulate a slave device to each of
the hosts." Br. 11 (Claims App'x) (emphasis added) (referred to in this
Decision as the "bridge limitation").
The Examiner found Voto' s bridge discloses the bridge limitation.
Final Act. 3 (citing Voto ,r,r 3, 8, 26, 28, Fig. 4). As the Examiner explained,
Voto "must necessarily make [one] host appear as a slave to [ a second] host"
and vice versa because "Voto conforms to the USB specification without the
need to provide OTG or dual role controllers or additional cabling, and
without requiring hardware changes." Id. at 19 (citing Voto ,r 11). Thus, the
Examiner found Voto's bridge emulates a slave device to each host. Id.
3
Appeal2018-007672
Application 14/935,082
Appellants merely assert the bridge limitation is not taught by Voto,
but fail to respond to the Examiner's factual findings or otherwise explain
their contention. Br. 6. Specifically, Appellants state:
In the present case, not every feature of claims 10 and 1 7
are presented in the Voto reference. Appellant respectfully
submits that Voto does not teach a single bridge configured to
communicatively couple together a plurality of hosts and to
emulate a slave device to each such host. Nowhere in Voto is it
taught that a bridge emulates a slave device to each host.
Due to the shortcomings of the Voto reference described
in the foregoing, Appellant respectfully asserts that Voto does
not anticipate Appellant's claims 10 and 17.
Id. ( emphasis in original). Appellants present no other arguments.
We are not persuaded of error. Appellants fail to address the
Examiner's findings or explain why those findings are allegedly unclear or
unsupported. By failing to do so, Appellants' contention amounts to a
request for a de nova review of the Examiner's findings. Further,
Appellants' bare restatement of the claim language does not show error. See
Ex Parte Belinne, 2009 WL 2477843, at *4 (BPAI Aug. 10, 2009)
(informative); see also 37 C.F.R. § 41.37 (c)(l)(iv) ("A statement which
merely points out what a claim recites will not be considered an argument
for separate patentability of the claim."); In re Lovin, 652 F.3d 1349, 1357
(Fed. Cir. 2011) ("[T]he Board reasonably interpreted Rule 41.37 to require
more ... than a mere recitation of the claim elements and a naked assertion
that the corresponding elements were not found in the prior art.").
In rejecting claims under 35 U.S.C. § 102, "[a] single prior art
reference that discloses, either expressly or inherently, each limitation of a
claim invalidates that claim by anticipation." Perricone v. Medicis Pharm.
4
Appeal2018-007672
Application 14/935,082
Corp., 432 F.3d 1368, 1375-76 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (citation omitted). The
Examiner found Voto discloses the bridge limitation and provided a detailed
explanation of this finding, which establishes prima facie anticipation. Final
Act. 3, 18-19; Ans. 20 (providing additional explanation of the rejection);
see In re Jung, 637 F.3d 1356, 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (prima facie case
established when the rejection provides sufficient explanation); In re King,
801 F.2d 1324, 1327 (Fed. Cir. 1986) ("[A] prima facie case of anticipation
[may be] based on inherency."). As noted above, Appellants fail to identify
any error in the Examiner's findings, and our review of the reference reveals
no such error. See, e.g., Voto ,r,r 11-15, 26, 28.
Therefore, based upon the findings above, on this record, we are not
persuaded of error in the Examiner's reliance on the cited prior art to
disclose the bridge limitation, nor do we find error in the Examiner's
resulting finding of anticipation of claim 10. Appellants present the same
argument for independent claim 1 7, which recites the disputed limitation in
commensurate form, and Appellants acknowledge dependent claims 16
and 18 fall with their respective independent claims. See Br. 6.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's anticipation rejection RI of claims
10 and 16-18.
Obviousness Rejections R2 and R3 of Claims 1, 3-9, 11-15, 19, and 20
The Examiner rejects claims 1, 3-9, 11-15, 19, and 20 as obvious
over a combination of Voto, LeToumeur, and/or "knowledge commonly
known in the art and admitted by Applicant to be prior art. "3 Final
3 Appellants do not allege any error in the Examiner's taking of official
notice or the Examiner's findings regarding the admitted prior art. Br. 7-8.
5
Appeal2018-007672
Application 14/935,082
Act. 5-16. For independent claim 1, Appellants rely on the same allegation
presented with respect to claim 10 (Br. 6-7); however, this does not show
error in the Examiner's findings, as explained above. 4 Appellants do not
separately argue the patentability of the dependent claims, and Appellants
acknowledge these claims stand or fall with their respective independent
claim. Br. 7-8; see In re King, 801 F.2d 1324, 1325 (Fed. Cir. 1986) (noting
a dependent claim not argued separately will stand or fall with the claim
from which it depends). Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's
obviousness rejections R2 and R3 of claims 1, 3-9, 11-15, 19, and 20.
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1 and 3-20.
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). See 37
C.F.R. § 41.50(±).
AFFIRMED
4 Further, the Examiner rejected claim 1 as obvious (Final Act. 5---6), but
Appellants argue the references do not "teach" the disputed limitation and
thus "do not anticipate" claim 1 (Br. 6-7). These arguments fail to respond
to the Examiner's obviousness rejection of claim 1, which found the
limitations to be taught or suggested by the references.
6