Intel Corporation

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Dec 23, 2020

2019005201 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 23, 2020)

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.
14/998,222 12/26/2015 Mikal C. Hunsaker P90751 3857
152398 7590 12/23/2020
Alliance IP, LLC - I
20 E. Thomas Rd.
Suite 2200, PMB 96
Phoenix, AZ 85012
EXAMINER
YU, HENRY W
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2181
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/23/2020 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):
della@allianceip.com
docket@allianceip.com
eofficeaction@appcoll.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
________________

Ex parte MIKAL C. HUNSAKER, SHAUN M. CONRAD, ZHENYU ZHU,
and NAVTEJ SINGH
________________

Appeal 2019-005201
Application 14/998,222
Technology Center 2100
________________

Before MICHAEL J. STRAUSS, JASON J. CHUNG, and
BETH Z. SHAW, Administrative Patent Judges.

CHUNG, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals the Final Rejection
of claims 1–26. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.
INVENTION
The invention relates to providing platform environment control
interface tunneling via an enhanced serial peripheral interface. Spec. ¶ 1.
Claims 1 and 7 are illustrative of the invention and are reproduced below
with italicized text denoting contested limitations:

1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in
37 C.F.R. § 1.42. According to Appellant, Intel Corporation is the real party
in interest. Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal 2019-005201
Application 14/998,222

2
1. An embedded controller for a computer,
comprising:
a processor;
first one or more logic elements comprising a serial
peripheral interface (SPI) module to communicatively couple the
embedded controller to an SPI bus as an SPI slave;
second one or more logic elements comprising a platform
environment control interface (PECl)-over-SPI engine, to:
build an SPI packet comprising an encapsulated PECI
command; and
send a notification to an SPI master that the packet is
available.
Appeal Br. 11 (Claims Appendix) (emphasis added).
7. A platform controller hub (PCH), comprising:
a processor;
an SPI network module to communicatively couple the
PCH to a serial peripheral interface (SPI) bus as an SPI master;
and
a platform environment control interface (PECl)-over-SPI
master engine to:
receive via the SPI bus a notification that an
encapsulated PECI packet is ready on an SPI slave;
fetch the encapsulated PECI packet from the SPI
slave via the SPI bus; and
send the encapsulated PECI packet to a processor
via the SPI bus.
Id. at 11–12 (Claims Appendix) (emphases added).

REJECTION
The Examiner rejects claims 1–26 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over the combination of Wu (US 2007/0258478 A1; published
Appeal 2019-005201
Application 14/998,222

3
Nov. 8, 2007) and Bradley (US 2014/0201301 A1; published July 17, 2014).
Final Act. 3–13.
ANALYSIS
Claims 1–26 Rejected Under 35 U.S.C. § 103
The Examiner finds Wu teaches encapsulating memory-mapped
read/write commands in the payload portion of a packet according to the link
packet protocol, which the Examiner maps to the limitation “build a[] . . .
packet comprising an encapsulated . . . command” recited in claim 1 (and
similarly recited in claims 7, 14, and 202). Final Act. 4 (citing Wu ¶ 40); see
also Final Act. 7–8, 10–11 (the Examiner’s findings rely on the same
citations to Wu). The Examiner finds Bradley teaches SPI and PECI. Final
Act. 4–5 (citing Bradley ¶¶ 2, 20); see also Final Act. 7–8, 10–11 (the
Examiner’s findings rely on the same citations to Bradley). The Examiner
finds Wu’s protocol extensibility “can be seen as a different protocol as the
extend protocol may not be backward-compatible with the base protocol.”
Ans. 4 (citing Wu ¶ 41).
Appellant argues Bradley’s SPI is a separate interface from Bradley’s
PECI. Appeal Br. 7–8 (citing Bradley ¶ 26; Appellant also notes that page 4
of the Final Action states Wu does not teach SPI and PECI); Reply Br. 3–4.
Moreover, Appellant argues Wu’s claim 15 clearly teaches that one or more
characters that form commands and that are encapsulated into one or more

2 Although claims 7 and 20 recite slightly different limitations than claims 1
and 14, claim 7 (and similarly recited claim 20) does recite “receive via the
SPI bus a notification that an encapsulated PECI packet is ready on an SPI
slave; fetch the encapsulated PECI packet from the SPI slave via the SPI
bus,” which is similar to claims 1 and 14.
Appeal 2019-005201
Application 14/998,222

4
packets are part of the link packet protocol. Reply Br. 33 (citing Wu, claim
15). We agree with Appellant.
We first address the Examiner’s findings in the Final Action. Final
Act. 4–5 (citing Bradley ¶¶ 2, 20); see also Final Act. 7–8, 10–11 (the
Examiner’s findings rely on the same citations to Bradley). Paragraph 26 of
Bradley assists us in filling in the gaps of paragraph 40 of Bradley. Appeal
Br. 7–8 (citing Bradley ¶ 26); Reply Br. 3–4 (citing Bradley ¶ 26). That is,
Bradley’s SPI 212 is a separate interface from Bradley’s PECI 220. Appeal
Br. 7–8 (citing Bradley ¶ 26; Appellant also correctly notes that page 4 of
the Final Action states Wu does not teach SPI and PECI, which turns our
focus to Bradley). Paragraph 26 of Bradley corresponds to Figure 2, which
also illustrates SPI 212 as a separate interface from PECI 220. Bradley ¶ 26,
Fig. 2. Therefore, the cited portions of Wu and Bradley fails to teach the
limitation “build an SPI packet comprising an encapsulated PECI command”
recited in claim 1 (and similarly recited in claims 7, 14, and 20). Final Act.
4–5, 7–8, 10–11 (citing Wu ¶ 40; Bradley ¶¶ 2, 20).
Next, we address the Examiner’s new finding in the Answer that Wu’s
protocol extensibility “can be seen as a different protocol as the extend
protocol may not be backward-compatible with the base protocol.” Ans. 4
(citing Wu ¶ 41). Wu’s claim 15 clearly teaches that one or more characters
that form commands and that are encapsulated into one or more packets are
part of the same link packet protocol. Reply Br. 3 (citing Wu, claim 15). As

3 Appellant’s new argument is timely (and, therefore, permitted) because the
Examiner made a new finding in the Answer. Compare Final Act. 4–5, 7–8,
10–11 (lacking a citation to Wu ¶ 41 and lacking an accompanying
explanation about “protocol extensibility”) with Ans. 4 (citing Wu ¶ 41 and
an accompanying explanation about “protocol extensibility”).
Appeal 2019-005201
Application 14/998,222

5
a result, the combination of Wu and Bradley fail to teach the limitation
“build an SPI packet comprising an encapsulated PECI command” recited in
claim 1 (and similarly recited in claims 7, 14, and 20). Stated another way,
the present claims require two different standards (i.e., SPI and PECI),
whereas Wu teaches the link packet protocol. Reply Br. 3 (citing Wu, claim
15).
Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of:
(1) independent claims 1, 7, 14, and 20; and (2) dependent claims 2–6, 8–13,
15–19, and 21–26 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.

CONCLUSION

REVERSED

Claim(s)
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§
Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1–26 103 Wu, Bradley 1–26