Ex Parte Menezes et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Nov 30, 2010

10113340 (B.P.A.I. Nov. 30, 2010)

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.
10/113,340 03/29/2002 Evandro Menezes 1001-0190 6535
46065 7590 11/30/2010
ZAGORIN O'BRIEN GRAHAM LLP (1001)
7600B NORTH CAPITAL OF TEXAS HIGHWAY
SUITE 350
AUSTIN, TX 78731-1191
EXAMINER
NGUYEN, HANH N
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2473
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
11/30/2010 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 BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
_____________

Ex parte EVANDRO MENEZES, DAVE TOBIAS, and
MORRIE ALTMEJD
_____________

Appeal 2009-007353
Application 10/113,340
Technology Center 2400

_______________

Before JOHN C. MARTIN, JOSEPH F. RUGGIERO,
and ROBERT E. NAPPI, Administrative Patent Judges.

NAPPI, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL1

1 The two-month time period for filing an appeal or commencing a civil
action, as recited in 37 C.F.R. § 1.304, or for filing a request for rehearing,
as recited in 37 C.F.R. § 41.52, begins to run from the “MAIL DATE”
(paper delivery mode) or the “NOTIFICATION DATE” (electronic delivery
mode) shown on the PTOL-90A cover letter attached to this decision.
Appeal 2009-007353
Application 10/113,340

This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the final
rejection of claims 1-3, 5-10, 13-15, 17-18, and 21-24.2 We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm-in-part the Examiner’s rejections of these claims.

INVENTION
The invention is directed to an apparatus and method of sending data,
identified by a data type, over a plurality of nodes. If the data type matches
the type processed by the receiving node, then the data is processed. If not,
the data is forwarded to another node. See Spec. 1-3. Claim 1 is
representative of the invention and reproduced below:
1. A method comprising:
sending data over a communication link that includes a
plurality of nodes coupled in a daisy chain by point to point
connections between the nodes along with an identification
of a data type of the data to a receiving node; and
forwarding the data over the communication link to
another one of the nodes on the communication link if the
data type does not match a type processed by circuitry
associated with the receiving node and processing the data if
the data type matches the type processed by circuitry
associated with the receiving node.

REFERENCES
Michener US 6,744,789 B1 Jun. 1, 2004
(filed Sep. 26, 2000)

Owen US 6,751,684 B2 Jun. 15, 2004
(filed Dec. 21, 2000)

2 Claims 4, 11-12, 16, and 19-20 have been cancelled.
2

Appeal 2009-007353
Application 10/113,340

REJECTION AT ISSUE
Claims 1-3, 5-10, 13-15, 17, 18, and 21-24 are rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Owen in view of Michener.
Ans. 3-6.
ISSUES
Claims 1-3, 5-6, 8-10, 13-14, 17-18, and 21-24
Appellants argue on pages 5-10 of the Appeal Brief and page 3 of the
Reply Brief that the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-3, 5-6, 8-10, 13-14,
17-18, and 21-24 is in error. Appellants argue that neither Owen nor
Michener discloses “forwarding the data over the communication link to
another one of the nodes on the communication link if the data type does not
match a type processed by circuitry associated with the receiving node.”
App. Br. 6.
Thus, with respect to claims 1-3, 5-6, 8-10, 13-14, 17-18, and 21-24,
Appellants’ contention presents us with the issue: Did the Examiner err in
finding that Owen in view of Michener disclose forwarding data over the
communication link to another one of the nodes on the communication link
if the data type does not match a type processed by circuitry associated with
the receiving node?
Claim 7
Appellants argue on pages 7-8 of the Appeal Brief and pages 2-3 of
the Reply Brief that the Examiner’s rejection of claim 7 is in error.
Appellants argue that neither Owen nor Michener discloses a nonvolatile
storage which provides the data type identification. App. Br. 7-8; Reply Br.
2-3.
3

Appeal 2009-007353
Application 10/113,340

Thus, with respect to claim 7, Appellants’ contention presents us with
the issue: Did the Examiner err in finding that Owen in view of Michener
discloses receiving data from an external source where that source is
nonvolatile storage associated with a computer system?
Claim 15
Appellants argue on page 9 of the Appeal Brief and page 2 of the
Reply Brief that the Examiner’s rejection of claim 15 is in error. Appellants
argue that neither Owen nor Michener discloses that “the data type identifier
identifies a manufacturer.” App. Br. 9; Reply Br. 2.
Thus, with respect to claim 15, Appellants’ contention presents us
with the issue: Did the Examiner err in finding that Owen in view of
Michener discloses that the data type identifier identifies a manufacturer?

ANALYSIS
Claims 1, 3, 5-6, 8-10, 17-18, and 24
Appellants’ arguments have not persuaded us of error in the
Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 3, 5-6, 8-10, 17-18, and 24. We select
claim 1 as representative of the group comprising claims 1, 3, 5-6, 8-10, 17-
18, and 24 since Appellants do not separately argue these claims with
particularity. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii). Claim 1 requires a receiving
node to forward data over the communication link to another node if the data
type does not match the type processed by the receiving node. Appellants
argue that Michener teaches routing and processing data within the node
rather than forwarding the data to another node. App. Br. 6. Additionally,
Appellants argue that Owen does not make up for any of Michener’s
deficiencies. App. Br. 6. We disagree.
4

Appeal 2009-007353
Application 10/113,340

The Examiner finds Owen discloses that when a packet is received at
a node, if the packet does not contain the appropriate destination address, the
packet is then forwarded on to the next node connected in the daisy chain.
Ans. 6. Appellants do not provide a specific definition for the term “data
type.” As a result, “data type” could broadly be interpreted to be the
destination address disclosed in Owen. However, the Examiner has
provided a secondary reference, Michener, to further support the Examiner’s
rejection. The Examiner finds that Michener indicates what type of data is
contained in the packet. Ans. 7. The packet may be either video, audio, or
null data. Ans. 7. Thus, the Examiner finds and we agree that it is the
combination of Owen’s daisy chain system with Michener’s packet type
identification that discloses forwarding the data from one node to another if
the data type does not match that which the original receiving node can
handle. Ans. 7. Consequently, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim
1 and claims 3, 5-6, 8-10, 17-18, and 24 that have been grouped with claim
1.
Claim 2
Appellants’ additional argument that neither Owen nor Michener
discloses claim 2 is also not persuasive for the reasons stated above with
regard to claim 1 and for the additional reason discussed below. Appellants
argue that “the data [in Michener] is not being sent over the claimed
communication link.” App. Br. 7. However, as noted above, Michener is
used to disclose that packet “data type” is known in the art. Ans. 7. Owen is
used to disclose that an incorrectly received packet is transmitted from one
node to another node in the daisy chain through the communication link.
Ans. 6. Thus, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 2.
5

Appeal 2009-007353
Application 10/113,340

Claim 7
Appellants’ additional argument that neither Owen nor Michener
discloses claim 7 is also not persuasive for the reasons stated above with
regard to claim 1 and for the additional reason discussed below. Appellants
argue that neither Owen nor Michener discloses that the data and data type
come from nonvolatile storage. App. Br. 8; Reply Br. 2-3. However, as
noted above, while a destination address can be interpreted as a “data type,”
the Examiner further provides Michener to disclose that identifying a packet
as containing audio, video, or null data, i.e., a data type, is known in the art.
Ans. 4. Michener also discloses that the packets are sent from an uplink
configuration that comprises a computer data source, i.e., non-volatile
source, that compresses the data into *.TIF files, *.JPG files, etc., and a
packetizer that converts the data into a packet before transmission. Col. 4, ll.
46-58. Thus, it is the combination of Owen with Michener that discloses
that data and data type come from nonvolatile storage. As a result, we
sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 7.
Claims 13-14 and 22-23
Appellants’ arguments have not persuaded us of error in the
Examiner’s rejection of claims 13-14 and 22-23. Appellants’ arguments
regarding these claims are not persuasive for the reasons discussed supra
with respect to claim 1. Therefore, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of
claims 13-14 and 22-23.
Claim 15
Appellants’ arguments have persuaded us of error in the Examiner’s
rejection of claim 15. Claim 15 recites “wherein the data type identifier
identifies a manufacturer.” Appellants argue that neither of the references
6

Appeal 2009-007353
Application 10/113,340

discloses this limitation. App. Br. 9; Reply Br. 2. The Examiner has not
sufficiently disclosed nor do we find where this limitation is disclosed in the
references. As such, we will not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim
15.

CONCLUSION
The Examiner did not err in finding that Owen in view of Michener
discloses forwarding data over the communication link to another one of the
nodes on the communication link if the data type does not match a type
processed by circuitry associated with the receiving node.
The Examiner did not err in finding that Owen in view of Michener
discloses receiving data from an external source that is nonvolatile storage
associated with a computer system.
The Examiner did err in finding that Owen in view of Michener
discloses a data type identifier that identifies a manufacturer.

SUMMARY
The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1-3, 5-10, 13-14, 17, 18,
and 21-24 is affirmed.
The decision of the Examiner to reject claim 15 is reversed.
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-IN-PART

7

Appeal 2009-007353
Application 10/113,340

MARTIN, Administrative Patent Judge, concurring.
For the following reasons, I concur with the result reached by the
Majority.

A. Claims 1, 3, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, 17, 18, and 24
I disagree with the Majority’s position that the recited “data type”
reads on the destination address in Owen’s packets. Instead, I would read
the recited “data type” on the direction (i.e., upstream or downstream) of
Owen’s packets, a position that finds support in Appellants’ claim 24 (“The
method as recited in claim 1 further comprising forwarding or processing the
data according to whether the data is going upstream or downstream over the
communication link.”). Claim 1 thus reads on blocks 84-92 in Owen’s
Figure 10 flowchart as follows. The recited step of “forwarding the data
over the communication link to another one of the nodes on the
communication link if the data type does not match a type processed by
circuitry associated with the receiving node” reads on blocks 84 and 92,
wherein the node forwards received packets that are not downstream packets
to the next node. The recited step of “processing the data if the data type
matches the type processed by circuitry associated with the receiving node”
reads on the processing steps represented by one or more of blocks 86, 88,
90, and 92. For these reasons, I would sustain the § 103(a) rejection of
claim 1 and the other claims Appellants have grouped therewith (viz., claims
3, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, 17, 18, and 24). Michener is therefore cumulative.

8

Appeal 2009-007353
Application 10/113,340

B. Claim 2
I would also sustain the rejection of claim 2 (“The method as recited
in claim 1 further comprising transmitting forwarding the processed data
processed by the receiving node over the communication link.”), which
reads on Owen’s Figure 10. Packets processed in blocks 86 and 88 are
transmitted over the communication link in blocks 90 and 92.

C. Claim 7
I would likewise sustain the rejection of claim 7, which depends on
claim 1 through claim 5 and recites that “the data received from the external
source includes the identification of the data type.” This claim reads on the
bridge bit in a received packet:
The node logic 44 may determine the direction (upstream
or downstream) in which the response packet is flowing by
examining the state of the bridge bit in bit time 1. In one
embodiment, if the bridge bit is set, then the response is flowing
from the host bridge and, thus, is traveling in the downstream
direction. If the bridge bit is not set, then some other device in
the chain issued the response packet, and, thus, the packet is
travelling in the upstream direction.
Owen, col. 13, ll. 19-26.

D. Claims 22, 23, 13, and 14
I would sustain the rejection of independent claim 22 and its
dependent claims 13, 14, and 23, which Appellants have grouped therewith,
for the same reasons that I would sustain the rejection of claim 1.

9

Appeal 2009-007353
Application 10/113,340

E. Claim 15
For the reasons given by the Majority, I would not sustain the
rejection of claim 15, which depends on independent claim 22 and recites
that “the data type identifier identifies a manufacturer.”

F. Claim 21
I would sustain the rejection of independent claim 21 for the same
reasons that I would sustain the rejection of claim 1.

ELD

ZAGORIN O’BRIEN GRAHAM LLP (1001)
7600B NORTH CAPITAL OF TEXAS HIGHWAY
SUITE 350
AUSTIN, TX 78731-1191
10