Ex Parte Nieuwland et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jun 12, 2009

10489048 (B.P.A.I. Jun. 12, 2009)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte ANDRE NIEUWLAND, RICHARD KLEIHORST,
VICTOR VAN DIJK, and ROELOF SALTERS
____________

Appeal 2009-001583
Application 10/489,048
Technology Center 2800
____________

Decided:1 June 12, 2009
____________

Before MAHSHID D. SAADAT, JOHN A. JEFFERY,
and CARLA M. KRIVAK, Administrative Patent Judges.

KRIVAK, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of
claims 1 and 7. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.

1 The two-month time period for filing an appeal or commencing a civil
action, as recited in 37 C.F.R. § 1.304, begins to run from the decided date
shown on this page of the decision. The time period does not run from the
Mail Date (paper delivery) or Notification Date (electronic delivery).

Appeal 2009-001583
Application 10/489,048

2
STATEMENT OF CASE
Appellants’ claimed invention is an electric device having a data
communication bus. Transition-dependent delay elements are coupled
between a control circuit and conductors thereon to delay certain transitions
on the data communication bus. This reduces the power consumption of the
communication bus (Abstract).
Independent claim 1, reproduced below, is representative of the
subject matter on appeal.

1. An electronic device (10), comprising:

a data communication bus (12) having a plurality of
substantially parallel conductors (12a, 12b, 12c, 12d), the
plurality of substantially parallel conductors (12a, 12b, 12c,
12d) comprising a first conductor (12a) and a second conductor
(12b); and

a control circuit (14) for providing the first conductor (12a)
with a first electrical signal and the second conductor (12b)
with a second electrical signal; characterized by further
comprising:

a first signal transition dependent delay circuit (16a) coupled to
the first conductor (12a) for delaying a first electrical signal
transition; and a second signal transition dependent delay
circuit (16b) coupled to the second conductor (12b) for delaying
a second electrical signal transition.

REFERENCES
Savaria US 6,703,868 B2 Mar. 9, 2004
The Examiner rejected claims 1 and 7 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) based
upon the teachings of Savaria.
Appeal 2009-001583
Application 10/489,048

3
Appellants contend that the delay circuits of Savaria are not the same
as the first and second signal-transition-dependent delay circuits recited in
claim 1 (App. Br. 7).

ISSUE
Did Appellants establish that the delay circuits of Savaria are not the
same as Appellants’ transition-dependent delay circuits?

FINDINGS OF FACT
1. Savaria teaches a system for data transmission including a
transmitter 14 that produces first and second output signals S30a, S30b (col.
9, ll. 29-32; Fig. 22).
2. Conductive paths 17a, 17b receive, first and second output
signals, respectively (col. 9, ll. 32-34).
3. Each of the conductive paths has a transmission line 22 (22a1,
22b1, 22a2, and 22b2) that includes a series of inverting buffers I and non-
inverting buffers N. The inverting buffers invert the state transitions of the
signals they pass. The non-inverting buffers regenerate the state transitions
of the signals they pass. (Col. 9, ll. 39-43.)

PRINCIPLES OF LAW
Anticipation is established only when a single prior art reference
discloses, expressly or under the principles of inherency, each and every
element of a claimed invention as well as disclosing structure which is
capable of performing the recited functional limitations. RCA Corp. v. Appl.
Appeal 2009-001583
Application 10/489,048

4
Dig. Data Sys., Inc., 730 F.2d 1440, 1444 (Fed. Cir. 1984); W.L. Gore &
Assoc., Inc. v. Garlock, Inc., 721 F.2d 1540, 1554 (Fed. Cir. 1983).
“A reference anticipates a claim if it discloses the claimed invention
such that a skilled artisan could take its teachings in combination with his
own knowledge of the particular art and be in possession of the invention.”
In re Graves, 69 F.3d 1147, 1152 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (internal citations,
quotation marks, and emphasis omitted).

ANALYSIS
The Examiner finds that Savaria teaches all the recited features of
Appellants’ claims 1 and 7 (Ans. 3). Particularly, the Examiner finds that
Appellants first and second signal-dependent-delay circuits are taught by the
series of inverting and non-inverting buffers of Savaria that produce a time
delay of the conductive path (Ans. 4; Figs. 22 and 23).
Appellants contend that the signal-transition-dependent delay circuits
recited in claim 1 cannot be the same as the inverter circuits of Savaria
because an ordinarily skilled artisan would clearly understand that the phrase
“signal transition dependent delay circuit” means a circuit that exhibits one
delay value for one signal transition and another delay value for another
transition signal (App. Br. 7). Appellants further contend that the output in
Savaria is delayed; however, a delayed output signal transition is not
dependent on there having been an input signal transition (App. Br. 7).
It should be noted that claim 1 is broadly written and merely recites a
first signal transition dependent delay circuit for delaying a first electrical
signal transition and a second electrical signal transition dependent delay
circuit for delaying a second electrical signal transition. The buffer circuits
Appeal 2009-001583
Application 10/489,048

5
of Savaria include inverting and non-inverting buffers (FF 1-3) that produce
a time delay for the conductive path as recognized by the Examiner (Ans. 4).
Additionally, Appellants have not provided sufficient evidence or
explanation to support their allegations that signal-transition-dependent
delay circuits should be interpreted to mean a circuit that exhibits one delay
value for one signal transition and another delay value for another transition
signal (App. Br. 7). Even, assuming arguendo, that a signal-transition-
dependent delay circuit should be given the meaning asserted by Appellants,
Savaria’s delay circuits, as shown in Figs. 23A-23B, show that for each
transmission line 22, a delayed signal transition output at N2a depends on
the transition signal at the input of I1a (Ans. 5). Thus, Savaria teaches all
the elements of Appellants’ claim 1, including the signal-transition-
dependent delay circuits.
In view of the above, Savaria anticipates claims 1 and 7.

CONCLUSION
Appellants did not establish that the delay circuits of Savaria are not
the same as Appellants transition-dependent delay circuits.

DECISION
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1 and 7 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102 is affirmed.

Appeal 2009-001583
Application 10/489,048

6
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

KIS

NXP, B.V.
NXP INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY & LICENSING
M/S41-SJ
1109 MCKAY DRIVE
SAN JOSE, CA 95131