Ex Parte Oak et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Aug 30, 2012

11001322 (B.P.A.I. Aug. 30, 2012)

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.
11/001,322 12/02/2004 Seung-Soo Oak 47810 8216
1609 7590 08/30/2012
ROYLANCE, ABRAMS, BERDO & GOODMAN, L.L.P.
1300 19TH STREET, N.W.
SUITE 600
WASHINGTON,, DC 20036
EXAMINER
ZAMAN, FAISAL M
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2111
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/30/2012 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 SEUNG-SOO OAK, SANG-HYONG LEE, and
JIN-HYUNG KIM
____________________

Appeal 2009-015245
Application 11/001,322
Technology Center 2100
____________________

Before JOSEPH L. DIXON, THU A. DANG, and JAMES R. HUGHES,
Administrative Patent Judges.

DIXON, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2009-015245
Application 11/001,322

2
STATEMENT OF CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a rejection of claims 1,
3-5, 7, 8, and 11-17. (App. Br. 4.) We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b).
We affirm.

The claims are directed to a Peripheral Component Interconnect (PCI)
local bus system. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed
subject matter:
1. A bus system, comprising:

a host for controlling the bus system, storing identifiers
of devices for which device addresses are initialized and
checking whether devices having the same identifiers as the
stored identifiers exist;

a first agent, whose device driver is initialized by the
host, adapted to send and receive data to and from the host and
to store identifiers of the devices whose device drivers are
initialized; and

at least one second agent adapted to send and receive
data directly to and from the first agent;

wherein the first agent initializes a device driver of the at
least one second agent for driving the at least one second agent,
after having checked whether the second agent exists on a
local bus and has the same identifier as one stored by the first
agent;

wherein the first and second agents are connected by an
interrupt signal line for notifying each other whether a data
signal is sent; and

Appeal 2009-015245
Application 11/001,322

3
wherein the second agent sends an interrupt notifying the
first agent that data to be sent occurs through the interrupt
signal line, and then sends the data.

REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Bronson US 2001/0027502 Al Oct. 04, 2001
Sutoh US 6,678,770 B1 Jan. 13, 2004
Bade US 6,792,513 B2 Sep. 14, 2004
Chow US 6,876,678 B1 Apr. 05, 2005
(filed Feb. 04, 1999)
Appellants’ Admitted Prior Art (AAPA)

PCI Special Interest Group, PCI Local Bus Specification Revision 2.2,
88-89 (1998).

REJECTIONS
Claims 1, 4, 7 and 11-15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Sutoh, Bade, and Chow.
Claim 3 and 17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Sutoh, Bade, Chow, and Bronson.
Claim 5 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Sutoh, Bade, Chow, and AAPA.
Claims 8 and 16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Sutoh and Chow.

ANALYSIS
With respect to representative independent claim 1, Appellants merely
provide arguments directed to the Sutoh reference. (App. Br. 10-13).
Appeal 2009-015245
Application 11/001,322

4
Additionally, Appellants have not filed a Reply Brief to address the
Examiner's further clarification of the claim interpretation and application of
the prior art teachings of the Sutoh reference.

Appellants contend that the Sutoh reference "does not disclose, teach,
suggest or render obvious the recited claim feature of a host for 'storing
identifiers of devices for which device addresses are initialized and checking
whether devices having the same identifiers as the stored identifiers exist'."
(App. Br. 10). The Examiner further clarifies the interpretation of the
teachings Sutoh in the responsive arguments. (Ans. 13-14). We agree with
the Examiner that Sutoh teaches and fairly suggests the claimed "a host for
controlling the bus system, storing identifiers of devices for which device
addresses are initialized and checking whether devices having the same
identifiers as the stored identifiers exist" of independent claim 1. Therefore,
we find Appellants' argument to be unpersuasive of error in the Examiner
showing of obviousness.
Additionally, Appellants contend that "Sutoh does not disclose, teach,
suggest or render obvious that drivers of devices having the same identifiers
are initialized as taught by exemplary embodiments of the present
invention." (App. Br. 11). Appellants further contend that "Sutoh is silent
with respect to the recited claim limitation and does not disclose that the
drivers of the devices are initialized only when having the same identifiers."
(App. Br. 11). The Examiner further clarifies that the claim language does
not specify exactly what time the initialization procedure is to occur. (Ans.
14). The Examiner maintains that:
Appeal 2009-015245
Application 11/001,322

5
As discussed above, standard PCI initialization procedures
require that only devices that are discovered through the IDSEL
discovery function are initialized (because they are the only
devices that are on the bus). Furthermore, Column 6, lines 42-
44, clearly states that the PCI bus drivers of the discovered
attached devices are initialized (" ...the initialization of the PCI
bus drivers 7 are carried out"). Accordingly, it can be seen that
Sutoh does in fact teach initializing the device driver of the
second agent after having checked if that second device exists
on the bus.

(Ans. 15). We agree with the Examiner. Therefore, we find Appellants'
argument to be unpersuasive of error in the Examiner showing of
obviousness.
Appellants finally contend that "Sutoh does not disclose, teach,
suggest or render obvious the recited claim feature of wherein a first agent,
whose device driver is initialized by the host, is 'adapted to send data to and
receive data from a host into stored identifiers of the devices whose device
drivers are initialized'". (App. Br. 11). The Examiner provides further
analysis and claim interpretation and finds that intelligent device 3 stores the
identifier of non-intelligent device 4 which it will be initializing and
therefore teaches and fairly suggests the first agent storing identifiers of the
at least one second device whose device drivers are initialized. (Ans. 15-
16). We agree with the Examiner's claim interpretation and application of
the prior art teachings of Sutoh. Therefore, we find Appellants' arguments to
be unpersuasive of error in the Examiner's showing of obviousness of
independent claim 1. Therefore, we sustain the rejection of independent
claim 1 and dependent claims 3-5 and 7.
Appeal 2009-015245
Application 11/001,322

6
With respect to independent claim 8 and dependent claims 11-16,
Appellants set forth similar arguments as advanced with respect to
independent claim 1 which we found unpersuasive. Therefore, we sustain
the rejections of representative claim 8 and dependent claims 11-16.
With respect to independent claim 17, Appellants set forth similar
arguments as advanced with respect to independent claim 1 which we found
unpersuasive. Therefore, we sustain the rejection of representative claim 17.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
The Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 1, 3-5, 7, 8, and 11-17
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).

DECISION
For the above reasons, the Examiner’s final rejection of claims 1, 3-5,
7, 8, and 11-17 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) is affirmed.
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

llw