Ex Parte Romero et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 29, 2018

12613456 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 29, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/613,456 11105/2009
57299 7590 04/02/2018
Kathy Manke
A vago Technologies Limited
4380 Ziegler Road
Fort Collins, CO 80525
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Gabriel L. Romero
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.
08-0837 6311
EXAMINER
PARK,ILWOO
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2184
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
04/02/2018 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):
kathy.manke@broadcom.com
patent.info@broadcom.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte GABRIELL. ROMERO and CORALYN S. GAUVIN
Appeal2013-002620
Application 12/613,456
Technology Center 2100
Before MARC S. HOFF, DENISE M. POTHIER, and
ERIC B. CHEN, Administrative Patent Judges.
CHEN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal2013-002620
Application 12/613,456
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the final rejection of
claims 1-18, all the claims pending in the application. We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm-in-part.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants' invention relates to interconnecting Serial Attached SCSI
(Small Computer Serial Interface) (SAS) or Serial Advanced Technology
Attachment (SATA) devices using either an electrical communication
medium or an optical communication medium. (Abstract.)
Claims 1 and 16 are exemplary, with disputed limitations in italics:
1. Apparatus associated with a first high speed serial device
for coupling with another high speed serial device using an optical
communication medium or using an electrical communication
medium wherein both the first and second high speed serial devices
are either Serial Attached SCSI (SAS) devices or Serial Advanced
Technology Attachment (SATA) devices, the apparatus comprising:
PHY control circuits coupled with a communication interface,
adapted to control data exchanges on the communication medium and
to generate digital control signals requesting the generation of Out of
Band (OOB) signals;
digital OOB encoder/decoder ( endec) logic coupled with the
PHY control circuits and coupled with the communication medium,
the digital OOB endec logic adapted to translate between digital
control signals utilized by the PHY control circuits and digitally
encoded OOB signals utilized on the communication medium; and
scrambling logic coupled with the digital OOB endec to de-
scramble digitally encoded OOB signals received from the
communication medium and to scramble generated digitally encoded
OOB signals generated by the digital OOB endec for application to
the communication medium.
2
Appeal2013-002620
Application 12/613,456
16. A system comprising:
a first high speed serial device;
a second high speed serial device, wherein both the first and
second high speed devices are either Serial Attached SCSI (SAS)
devices or Serial Advanced Technology Attachment (SAT A) devices;
a communication medium coupling coupled the first high speed
serial device with the second high speed serial device;
a first digital out of band (OOB) encoder/decoder (endec) logic
coupled with the first high speed serial device and coupled with the
communication medium, the first digital OOB endec logic adapted to
translate between digital control signals utilized by the first high
speed serial device and digitally encoded OOB signals utilized on the
communication medium;
a first scrambling logic coupled with the first digital OOB
endec, the first scrambling logic operable to de-scramble digitally
encoded OOB signals received from the communication medium and
further operable to scramble digitally encoded OOB signals generated
by the first digital OOB endec for application to the communication
medium;
a second digital out of band (OOB) encoder/decoder (endec)
logic coupled with the second high speed serial device and coupled
with the communication medium, the second digital OOB endec logic
adapted to translate between digital control signals utilized by the
second high speed serial device and digitally encoded OOB signals
utilized on the communication medium; and
a second scrambling logic coupled with the second digital OOB
endec, the second scrambling logic operable to de-scramble digitally
encoded OOB signals received from the communication medium and
further operable to scramble digitally encoded OOB signals generated
by the second digital OOB endec for application to the
communication medium.
Claims 1, 3, 4, 11, 14, 16, and 17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Sobelman (US 2011/0022750 Al; Jan. 27,
2011) and Abe (US 2010/0088435 Al; Apr. 8, 2010).
3
Appeal2013-002620
Application 12/613,456
Claim 2 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Sobelman, Abe, and Cagno (US 2008/0183917 Al; July 31, 2008).
Claims 5, 6, and 18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Sobelman, Abe, Cagno, and Appellants' admitted prior
art.
Claims 7-10, 12, 13, and 15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as unpatentable over Sobelman, Abe, and Kotturu (US 2008/0189641 Al;
Aug. 7, 2008).
Appellants relied upon the following 1 in rebuttal to the Examiner's
rejection:
Declaration under 37 C.F.R. § 1.132 of Gabriel Romero and Coralyn
Gauvin ("Declaration"), dated November 7, 2011.
ANALYSIS
§ 103 Rejection-Sobelman and Abe
Claims 1, 3, and 4
We are persuaded by Appellants' arguments (App. Br. 9) that the
combination of Sobelman and Abe would not have rendered obvious
independent claim 1, which includes the limitation "PHY control circuits ...
adapted ... to generate digital control signals requesting the generation of
Out of Band (OOB) signals."
1 This opinion only addresses arguments made by Appellants. Arguments
not made are considered waived. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv). We have
considered the declaration evidence to the extent raised by Appellants'
arguments.
4
Appeal2013-002620
Application 12/613,456
The Examiner found that downstream receiver (RX) 704, downstream
transmitter (TX) 718, OOB information detector 706, multiplexer
(MUX) 709, encoding path 701, and decoding path 703 of Sobelman, as
illustrated in Figure 7, collectively correspond to the limitation "PHY
control circuits ... adapted ... to generate digital control signals requesting
the generation of Out of Band (OOB) signals." (Ans. 5; see also Subst.
Ans. 8.) We do not agree with the Examiner's findings.
Sobelman relates to data communication systems, in particular,
"bridging out-of-band (OOB) information across one or more intermediate
devices, located between a first device and another device, and for
preventing false presence detection of terminating devices" (i-f 2.) Sobelman
explains that "the disclosed technology comprises a first device that includes
a first interface having an input for coupling the first device to a first
communication link," such that "[t]he first interface can receive a signal
[e.g., OOB information] via the first communication link." (i-f 22.) Figure 7
of Sobelman illustrates a block diagram of downstream intermediate device
406, which includes downstream receiver (RX) 704, OOB information
detector 706, downstream transmitter (TX) 718, multiplexer (MUX) 709,
encoding path 701, and decoding path 703. (i1i131, 36, 41, 43.)
Although the Examiner cited to Figure 7 of Sobelman, which is a
block diagram of downstream intermediate device 406, the Examiner has
provided insufficient evidence to support a finding that Sobelman teaches
the limitation "PHY control circuits ... adapted ... to generate digital
control signals requesting the generation of Out of Band (OOB) signals." In
particular, Sobelman explains the data communication systems "bridg[ es]
out-of-band (OOB) information across one or more intermediate device"
5
Appeal2013-002620
Application 12/613,456
(Sobehnan i-f 2), and Figure 7 of Sobehnan illustrates an embodiment of such
downstream intermediate device 406 (id. i-f 36). Accordingly, Sobelman
explains that downstream intermediate device 406, which includes
downstream receiver (RX) 704, OOB information detector 706, downstream
transmitter (TX) 718, multiplexer (MUX) 709, encoding path 701, and
decoding path 703, receives transmitted OOB information from another
upstream intermediate device, rather than "PHY control circuits ... adapted
... to generate digital control signals requesting the generation of Out of
Band (OOB) signal," as recited in claim 1.
Thus, on this record, the Examiner has not demonstrated that
Sobelman, as mapped, teaches the limitation "PHY control circuits ...
adapted ... to generate digital control signals requesting the generation of
Out of Band (OOB) signal," as recited in claim 1. Furthermore, the
Examiner's application of Abe does not cure the above-noted deficiencies
with respect to Sobelman.
Accordingly, we are persuaded by Appellants' arguments that "[i]n
claim 1, digital control signals utilized by a PHY control circuit of the
apparatus are generated (i.e., the digital control signals are generated internal
to the apparatus) and translated," whereas "[t]he intermediate device [of
Sobelman] receives an OOB signal that has already been generated by
another device, translates the OOB signal into digital symbols, and sends the
digital symbols along to another coupled device." (App. Br. 9.)
Thus, we do not sustain the rejection of independent claim 1 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a). Claims 3 and 4 depend from independent claim 1. We do
not sustain the rejection of claims 3 and 4 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) for the
same reasons discussed with respect to independent claim 1.
6
Appeal2013-002620
Application 12/613,456
Claims 11 and 14
Independent claim 11 differs in scope from independent claim 1,
reciting the limitation "the received descrambled digitally encoded signal to
generate a digital control signal for a PHY logic circuit representing an
incoming out of band (OOB) signal." Namely, this claim, unlike claim 1,
does not require the PHY logic circuit to be adapted to generate digital
control signals requesting the generation of OOB signals. Appellants have
not presented any substantive arguments with respect to the rejection of
claims 11 and 14. Accordingly, we summarily sustain the Examiner's
rejection of claim 11 and dependent claim 14.
Claims 16 and 1 7
We are unpersuaded by Appellants' arguments (Reply Br. 2-5) that
the combination of Sobelman and Abe would not have rendered obvious
independent claim 16, which includes the limitation "OOB endec logic
adapted to translate between digital control signals utilized by the first high
speed serial device and digitally encoded OOB signals utilized on the
communication medium."
The Examiner found that Encoder 708 and Decoder 720 of Sobelman,
as illustrated in Figure 7, correspond to the limitation "digital OOB
encoder/decoder ( endec) logic ... the digital OOB endec logic adapted to
translate between digital control signals utilized by the PHY control circuits
and digitally encoded OOB signals utilized on the communication medium."
(See Subst. Ans. 8-9.) In particular, the Examiner found that "OOB signals
received and the OOB signals transmitted use the same protocol or
7
Appeal2013-002620
Application 12/613,456
architecture ... which is a serial digital path and bi-directional." (See id.
at 2-3.) We agree with the Examiner's findings.
In the "Background" section, Sobelman explains that "[t]he PCI
EXPRESS architecture uses low-voltage differential signaling, a packet-
based data transmission protocol and an extendable high-speed data rate
beginning at 2.5 Gb/s," and "[a] typical PCI EXPRESS implementation may
use a four-wire interface to provide a bi-directional transmit signal path and
receive signal path." (Sobelman i-f 4.) Sobelman further explains that "an
intermediate device 200 is included in the link 112, and the link 112 is a PCI
EXPRESS transport path." (Id. i-f 28.) Moreover, Sobelman explains that
"originating 402, terminating 408 and intermediate devices ( 404, 406) can
communicate with each other via the serial transport path 410 using
communication protocols and PHY layer standards, including but not limited
to PCI EXPRESS and protocols such as the SATA protocol." (Id. i-f 36.)
Figure 7 of Sobelman illustrates a block diagram of downstream
intermediate device 406, including Encoder 708 and Decoder 720. (Id.
i-f 41.) Because Sobelman explains that PCI EXPRESS (i.e., PCie)
architecture is a packet-based data transmission protocol (i.e., digital) and
that intermediate device 406, which includes Encoder 708 and Decoder 720,
is both PCI EXPRESS and SATA protocol compliant (id. i-f 36), Sobelman
teaches or suggests the limitation "digital OOB encoder/decoder ( endec)
logic ... the digital OOB endec logic adapted to translate between digital
control signals utilized by the PHY control circuits and digitally encoded
OOB signals utilized on the communication medium."
First, Appellants argue that "PCie is an entirely different protocol than
SAS, and an entirely different protocol than SATA." (Reply Br. 2.) In
8
Appeal2013-002620
Application 12/613,456
particular, Appellants argue that "PCie separately defines its OOB signaling
techniques from those of SAS/SAT A systems, ... the OOB techniques of
PCie are not interchangeable with those of SAS/SA TA systems," (id.) and
"the timing constraints for PCie OOB signaling are orders of magnitude
different from the timing constraints for SAS/SAT A signaling as discussed
in the Declaration at i-f 9--i-flO" (id. at 3). However, as discussed previously,
Sobelman explains that intermediate device 406 is both PCI EXPRESS and
SAT A protocol compliant. (Sobelman i-f 33).
In addition, Appellants' Declaration is based on the premise that the
OOB information of Sobelman is analog and does not adequately rebut the
above-discussed Examiner's findings that the OOB information of Sobelman
is digital because Sobelman explains that "[t]he PCI EXPRESS architecture
uses ... a packet-based data transmission protocol." (Id. i-f 4.) Appellants
have not provided any persuasive evidence as to why the Examiner's
findings with respect to paragraph 4 of Sobelman are incorrect or improper.
Moreover, the Declaration is not persuasive because the testimony of the
instant inventors lacks sufficient objective, factual support or corroborating
evidence for their position. See In re Beattie, 974 F.2d 1309, 1313 (Fed. Cir.
1992) ("[D]eclarations themselves offer only opinion evidence which has
little value without factual support.").
Second, Appellants argue "[t]he Examiner asserts that Sobelman's
system could be modified for use with SAS/SAT A devices such as those
described in claim 1," but "provides no technique for modifying a
SAS/SAT A system to utilize PCie OOB signaling" and "swapping PCie
OOB signaling into an operating SAS/SATA system would trigger
numerous protocol errors." (Reply Br. 3.) Again, as discussed previously,
9
Appeal2013-002620
Application 12/613,456
Sobehnan explains that intermediate device 406 is both PCI EXPRESS and
SATA protocol compliant. (Sobelman i-f 33). Thus, we are not persuaded
that using a SAT A protocol would create protocol errors as asserted.
Last, Appellants argue that "the Examiner's position would be
untenable even if PCie OOB signaling could be used in a SAS/SATA
environment (which it cannot), because PCie also uses analog OOB signals,
not digital OOB signals." (Reply Br. 5.) Contrary to Appellants' arguments,
and as found by the Examiner (Subst. Ans. 2-3), Sobelman explains that
"[t]he PCI EXPRESS architecture uses ... a packet-based data transmission
protocol." (Sobelman i-f 4). Also, as previously noted, Appellants have not
rebutted this finding or conclusions sufficiently on the record.
Thus, we agree with the Examiner that the combination of Sobelman
and Abe would have rendered obvious independent claim 16, which includes
the limitation "OOB endec logic adapted to translate between digital control
signals utilized by the first high speed serial device and digitally encoded
OOB signals utilized on the communication medium."
Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of independent claim 16 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a). Claim 17 depends from independent claim 16, and
Appellants have not presented any additional substantive arguments with
respect to this claim. Therefore, we sustain the rejection of claim 17 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) for the same reasons discussed with respect to
independent claim 1.
§ 103 Rejection-Sobelman, Abe, and Cagno
Claim 2 depends from independent claim 1. Cagno was cited by the
Examiner for teaching the additional features of claim 2. (Subst. Ans. 17-
10
Appeal2013-002620
Application 12/613,456
18.) However, the Examiner's application of Cagno does not cure the above
noted deficiencies of Sobelman and Abe.
§ 103 Rejection--Sobelman, Abe, Cagno, and Admitted Prior Art
Claims 5 and 6
Claims 5 and 6 depend from independent claim 1. Cagno and
Appellants' admitted prior art were cited by the Examiner for teaching the
additional features of claims 5 and 6. (Subst. Ans. 18-19.) However, the
Examiner's application of Cagno and Appellants' admitted prior art does not
cure the above noted deficiencies of Sobelman and Abe.
Claim 18
Claim 18 depends from claim 16, and Appellants have not presented
any additional substantive arguments with respect to the rejection of
claim 18. Accordingly, we summarily sustain the Examiner's rejection of
claim 18.
§ 103 Rejection-Sobel man, Abe, and Kotturu
Claims 7-10
Claims 7-10 depends from independent claim 1. Kotturu was cited by
the Examiner for teaching the additional features of claims 7-10. (Subst.
Ans. 19-20.) However, the Examiner's application of Kotturu does not cure
the above noted deficiencies of Sobelman and Abe.
11
Appeal2013-002620
Application 12/613,456
Claims 12, 13, and 15
Claims 12, 13, and 15 depend from claim 11, and Appellants have not
presented any additional substantive arguments with respect to the rejection
of claims 12, 13, and 15. Accordingly, we summarily sustain the
Examiner's rejection of claims 12, 13, and 15.
DECISION
The Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-10 is reversed.
The Examiner's decision rejecting claims 11-18 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)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
12