Ex Parte Sugiyama et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardMar 21, 201311724056 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 21, 2013) Copy Citation UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE _____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD _____________ Ex parte SHIGETOSHI SUGIYAMA and TAKESHI SHIMOYAMA _____________ Appeal 2011-002327 Application 11/724,056 Technology Center 2100 ______________ Before, JEAN R. HOMERE, DAVID M. KOHUT, and BRYAN F. MOORE, Administrative Patent Judges. KOHUT, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2011-002327 Application 11/724,056 2 This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the Final Rejection of claims 1, 3-6, and 8-11.1 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm the Examiner’s rejection of these claims. INVENTION The invention is directed to a data transfer device and system. Spec. 3-8. Claim 1 is representative of the invention and is reproduced below: 1. A data transfer device to which a master device capable of issuing a plurality of transfer requests and a plurality of slave devices each having a function of responding to the transfer request are connected, said data transfer device comprising: a transfer request counter configured to count up or count down each time a response signal responding to the transfer request issued from the master device is inputted thereto from any one of the plurality of slave devices, and count down or count up each time a data transfer completion signal is inputted thereto; a transfer destination selector configured to, based on a count value of said transfer request counter and information concerning a transfer-target slave device, determine and select one of the plurality of slave devices as a destination of the transfer request, and connect the master device with the selected slave device to enable data transfer therebetween; and a data transfer monitoring section configured to monitor completion of data transfer corresponding to the transfer request issued by the master device and, upon recognizing the completion thereof, output the data transfer completion signal to said transfer request counter, when the count value is the same as a predetermined count value the selector may select any of the slave devices, when the count value is not the same as the predetermined count value the selector may select only a current slave device. 1 Claims 2 and 7 were previously cancelled. Appeal 2011-002327 Application 11/724,056 3 REFERENCE Van Loo US 5,854,906 Dec. 29, 1998 REJECTION AT ISSUE Claims 1, 3-6, and 8-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being anticipated by Van Loo. Ans. 3-9. ISSUE Did the Examiner err in finding that Van Loo describes a predetermined count value, as required by each of independent claims 1, 6, and 10? ANALYSIS Claims 1, 6, and 10 Appellants argue that Van Loo fails to disclose a predetermined count value, as required by each of independent claims 1, 6, and 10, because Van Loo discloses a varying range of counter values, not a constant or single predetermined value. App. Br. 4-5; Reply Br. 3. Appellants’ argument is not commensurate in scope with the claims. None of the independent claims or Appellants’ Specification requires that the predetermined value be a constant value or that it cannot be a value included in a range of predetermined values. For instance, as indicated in the Examiner’s Answer on page 10, if the config value is 8, then the predetermined count value is one of 7 or 6 or 5 or 4 or any number less than 8. Thus, the Examiner finds that when the predetermined value is one of those values, then one of the slave devices is selected; otherwise the current slave device is selected. Ans. Appeal 2011-002327 Application 11/724,056 4 10. While the actual range of numbers may change based upon the config value, the value is still predetermined because it has been predetermined that the value will be any number less than the config value. As such, we agree with the Examiner that Van Loo discloses a predetermined count value, as required by each of the independent claims. Therefore, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 3-6, and 8-11. Claims 3-5, 8, 9, and 11 Appellants argue that claims 3-5, 8, 9, and 11 are allowable based upon an allowable base claim. App. Br. 5-6. Since we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of independent claims 1, 6, and 10, we also sustain the Examiner’s rejection of dependent claims 3-5, 8, 9, and 11 for the same reasons as indicated supra. CONCLUSION The Examiner did not err in finding that Van Loo describes a predetermined count value, as required by each of independent claims 1, 6, and 10. SUMMARY The Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1, 3-6, and 8-11 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 msc Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation
