Ex Parte Zumsteg et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 20, 2013

10993928 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 20, 2013)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte PHILIP J. ZUMSTEG and KEVIN R. DRISCOLL
____________________

Appeal 2010-0123011
Application 10/993,928
Technology Center 2400
____________________

Before JEAN R. HOMERE, MARC S. HOFF, and CARLA M. KRIVAK,
Administrative Patent Judges.

HOMERE, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

1 The real party in interest is Honeywell International Inc. (App. Br. 1.)

Appeal 2010-012301
Application 10/993,928

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s final
rejection of claims 1, 2, 5-7, 9-27, 29, 30, 32, 33, 35-40, 42-46, 48, and 49.
(App. Br. 1.) Claims 3, 4, 8, 28, 31, 34, 41, 47, and 50 have been canceled.
(Id.) We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
Appellants’ Invention
Appellants invented a fault-tolerant communication system containing
a plurality of linear bus nodes (106, 108), each having a ring interface unit
(120) to couple a node associated therewith to a ring (114) thereby
configuring the nodes to communicate with one another via a linear bus
network as well as a ring network. (Spec. ¶¶ [0007]-[0012].)
Representative Claim
Independent claim 1 is representative of the invention as follows:
1. An apparatus comprising:
a node configured to communicate data over a linear bus;
and
a ring interface unit, in communication with the node, to
communicatively couple the node to a ring;
wherein the ring interface unit communicatively couples
the node to the ring by communicatively coupling the node to
first and second portions of the ring;
wherein the ring interface unit comprises:
a first transceiver for communicating data over the
first portion of the ring; and
Appeal 2010-012301
Application 10/993,928

3
a second transceiver for communicating data over
the second portion of the ring.

Prior Art Relied Upon
The Examiner relies on the following prior art as evidence of
unpatentability:
Morrison US 5,809,220 Sep. 15, 1998
Weigl US 7,171,579 B2 Jan. 30, 2007

Rejections on Appeal
The Examiner rejects the claims on appeal as follows:
1. Claims 1, 2, 5-7, 9-27, 29, 30, 32, 33, 36-38, 40, 42-46, 48, and 49
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Morrison.
2. Claims 35 and 39 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable
over the combination of Morrison and Weigl.

ANALYSIS
We consider Appellants’ arguments seriatim as they are presented in
the Appeal Brief, pages 6-11, and the Reply Brief, pages 1-3.

Dispositive Issue: Under 35 U.S.C. § 102, did the Examiner err in
finding Morrison describes a node configured to communicate data over a
linear bus, which is communicatively coupled to a ring, as recited claim 1?

Appellants argue the Examiner erred in finding Morrison describes
the disputed limitations emphasized above. (App. Br. 7-9; Reply Br. 1-3.)
Appeal 2010-012301
Application 10/993,928

4
In particular, Appellants argue that while Morrison discloses a plurality of
nodes connected via point-to-point serial links forming a ring network, the
serial links do not fall within the well-known meaning of linear buses in the
art. (Id.)
In response, the Examiner finds that, under the broadest reasonable
interpretation consistent with Appellants’ Specification “‘a linear bus’ is
simply a bus/link/connection for data communication,” Morrison’s
disclosure of serial buses arranged in a ring topology for communicating
data among nodes describes the disputed limitations. (Ans. 18-19.)
Based upon our review of the record before us, we do not find error
with the Examiner’s anticipation rejection regarding claim 1. We begin our
analysis by first considering the scope and meaning of the claim limitation
“linear bus” which must be given the broadest reasonable interpretation
consistent with Appellants’ disclosure, as explained in In re Morris:
[T]he PTO applies to the verbiage of the proposed claims the
broadest reasonable meaning of the words in their ordinary
usage as they would be understood by one of ordinary skill in
the art, taking into account whatever enlightenment by way of
definitions or otherwise that may be afforded by the written
description contained in the applicant’s specification.

In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054 (Fed. Cir. 1997). See also In re Zletz,
893 F.2d 319, 321 (Fed. Cir. 1989) (stating that “claims must be interpreted
as broadly as their terms reasonably allow.”). Our reviewing court further
states, “the ‘ordinary meaning’ of a claim term is its meaning to the ordinary
Appeal 2010-012301
Application 10/993,928

5
artisan after reading the entire patent.” Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d
1303, 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc).
In particular, Appellants’ Specification states the following:
A network having a linear bus topology (also referred to here as
a “linear bus topology”) typically requires significantly less
wire to implement than a star network. However, a linear bus
network is susceptible to single points of failure, which may not
be suitable for some safety-critical applications that require
high reliability.

(Spec. ¶ [0006].)

In the particular embodiment shown in FIG. 1, the nodes
106 and 108 are implemented using TTP/A linear bus
components. That is, each of the nodes 106 and 108 are
implemented using TTP/A component that are typically used to
couple a TTP/A node to one or more linear buses. In the
particular embodiment shown in FIG. 1, each node 106 and 108
is adapted to communicate over four linear buses. Each linear
bus node is coupled to the rings using a pair of ring interface
units 120. For each such linear bus node, one ring interface unit
120 (referred to here individually as a ring interface unit 120-0)
couples the node to the ring 0 and the other ring interface unit
(referred to here individually as a ring interface unit 120-1)
couples the node to the ring 1. In this way, TTP/A linear bus
components can be used in the dual ring bus topology of FIG.
1. More generally, ring interface units 120 can be used to
implement a ring bus topology (or similar topologies) using
linear bus components not otherwise designed for use in such
topologies in order to improve the integrity and/or reliability
that can be realized using such linear bus components.

(Spec. ¶ [0030] (emphasis added).)
Appeal 2010-012301
Application 10/993,928

6
We note the relevant portions of Appellants’ Specification cited above
do not expressly define “a linear bus.” Further, while Appellants allege the
well-known meaning of a linear bus does not include a point-to-point link to
implement a ring network, or the linear bus can link more than two nodes
unlike a serial bus, Appellants have not provided the so-called well-known
definition of the linear bus. (Reply Br. 2-3.) We therefore construe the
disputed expression according to its ordinary meaning, whereby a “linear
bus” refers to “a network configuration in which each node is connected to
the next in a straight line.”2 Accordingly, consistent with Appellants’
specification, we conclude the disputed limitations require using a set of
nodes connected in a straight line via one or more buses to thereby
communicate with a ring network. Consequently, we agree with the
Examiner’s finding that because Morrison’s disclosure of a serial links
arrangement where the nodes therein are connected to one another in a
straight line to allow the nodes to communicate with the ring network (Fig.
1), the disclosed serial link arrangement describes the claimed linear
network. Consequently, we are satisfied Morrison describes the disputed
limitations. It follows that Appellants have not shown error in the
Examiner’s rejection of claim 1. Claims 2, 5-7, 9-27, 29, 30, 32, 33, 36-38,
40, 42-46, 48, and 49, not separately argued fall therewith. See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(1)(vii).
Regarding the rejection of claims 35 and 39, Appellants present
similar arguments as those previously raised for patentability of claim 1.

2 See, e.g., http://thought1.org/nt100/module3/linear_bus.html
Appeal 2010-012301
Application 10/993,928

7
(App. Br. 10-11.) As discussed above, these arguments are not persuasive.
Therefore, Appellants have not shown error in the Examiner’s rejection of
claims 35 and 39.

DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s rejections of claims 1, 2, 5-7, 9-27, 29, 30,
32, 33, 35-40, 42-46, 48, and 49 as set forth above.
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