Ex parte Olnowich

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Mar 25, 1998

07947010 (B.P.A.I. Mar. 25, 1998)

Application for patent filed September 17, 1992.1
1
THIS OPINION WAS NOT WRITTEN FOR PUBLICATION
The opinion in support of the decision being entered today
(1) was not written for publication in a law journal and
(2) is not binding precedent of the Board.
Paper No. 15
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_____________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
_____________

Ex parte HOWARD T. OLNOWICH,
DONALD G. GRICE AND ARTHUR R. WILLIAMS
_____________
Appeal No. 96-0546
Application 07/947,0101
______________
ON BRIEF
_______________
Before HAIRSTON, KRASS, and JERRY SMITH, Administrative Patent
Judges.
HAIRSTON, Administrative Patent Judge.
Appeal No. 96-0546
Application No. 07/947,010
The examiner’s contentions (Answer, page 6) to the2
contrary notwithstanding, the withdrawal of claim 17 is not an
admission by appellants that the claim “is properly rejected
by the prior art of record.”
2
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is an appeal from the final rejection of claims 14
through 22. In view of appellants’ withdrawal of the appeal
of claims 17 and 19 (Brief, page 1), claims 14 through 16, 182
and 20 through 22 remain before us on appeal.
The disclosed invention relates to a bufferless switching
network.
Claim 14 is illustrative of the claimed invention, and it
reads as follows:
14. A bufferless switching apparatus comprising:
a plurality of switch inputs and a plurality of switch
outputs;
connection means for establishing a requested
communication path between any one of the switch inputs and
any one of the switch outputs in response to a connection
request included in a data message received at said any one of
the switch inputs, said communication path for transmitting
the data message received at said any one of the switch inputs
to said any one of the switch outputs;
said connection means including asynchronous connection
means for establishing asynchronously a plurality of
simultaneously active requested communication paths between a
Appeal No. 96-0546
Application No. 07/947,010
3
plurality of switch inputs and a plurality of switch outputs
in response to a plurality of connection requests each
included in one of a plurality of data messages received
separately or simultaneously at said plurality of switch
inputs, said simultaneously active communication paths for
transmitting simultaneously said plurality of data messages to
said plurality of switch outputs;
said requested communication path and said simultaneously
active requested communication paths each comprising a
plurality of data paths for transmitting the data message, and
a plurality of control paths, one of the control paths for
transmitting a clock signal in parallel with the data message,
a first pulse of the clock signal triggering the transmission
of data message bits; and
a clock regeneration circuit at each switch input for
receiving the data message and the clock signal and for
transmitting a realigned data message and clock signal to said
any one of the switch outputs, the clock regeneration circuit
including delay means for adjusting a pulse width of the clock
signal thereby aligning the clock signal and the data message
bits for minimizing skew and pulse distortion between the
clock signal and the data message bits.
The references relied on by the examiner are:
Upp 4,914,429 Apr. 3,
1990
Newman 4,965,788 Oct. 23,
1990
Todd 5,072,442 Dec.
10, 1991
Buhrke et al. (Buhrke) 5,231,631 July 27,
1993
(effective filing date Aug. 15,
1989)
Traw et al. (Traw) 5,274,768 Dec. 28,
1993
(filing date May 28,
1991)
Appeal No. 96-0546
Application No. 07/947,010
4
Claims 14 through 16, 18 and 20 through 22 stand rejected
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Upp in view
of Newman.
Claims 18 and 20 through 22 stand rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Upp in view of
Newman and either Todd, Traw or Buhrke.
Reference is made to the brief and the answer for the
respective positions of the appellants and the examiner.
OPINION
We have carefully considered the entire record before us,
and we will reverse the obviousness rejection of claims 14
through 16, 18 and 20 through 22.
Appellants and the examiner both agree (Brief, page 4,
and Answer, page 5) that the clock regenerators 40a through
40p of Upp are located at the output ports as opposed to the
input ports as required by claims 14 through 16, 18 and 20
through 22 on appeal. According to the examiner (Answer, page
5), “[i]t would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in
the art at the time of Appellant’s [sic, Appellants’]
invention to place the clock regenerators of Upp at the input
port of the switching network, since it has been held that
Appeal No. 96-0546
Application No. 07/947,010
5
rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill
in the art.” In the absence of evidence in the record that
the circuit disclosed by Upp will still operate as intended
with the modification suggested by the examiner, we agree with
appellants’ argument (Brief, pages 4 and 7) that Upp and
Newman neither teach nor would they have suggested to the
skilled artisan clock regenerators at an input. The
additional references to Todd, Traw and Buhrke were cited by
the examiner (Final rejection, paragraphs 19 and 20) for their
teachings concerning nodes. Neither of these references cures
the noted shortcoming in the teachings of Upp and Newman.
Thus, the obviousness rejection of claims 14 through 16, 18
and 20 through 22 is reversed.
DECISION
The decision of the examiner rejecting claims 14 through
16, 18 and 20 through 22 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is reversed.
REVERSED

Appeal No. 96-0546
Application No. 07/947,010
6
KENNETH W. HAIRSTON )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
ERROL A. KRASS ) APPEALS AND
Administrative Patent Judge ) INTERFERENCES
)
)
)
JERRY SMITH )
Administrative Patent Judge )
Appeal No. 96-0546
Application No. 07/947,010
7
Lynn L. Auspurger
INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS MACHINES CORP.
Intellectual Property Law N50/251-2
1701 North Street
Endicott, NY 13760