Ex Parte Abbott et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Nov 12, 2014

12490863 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 12, 2014)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte JOHN J. ABBOTT and RICHARD K. KUNZE
____________

Appeal 2013-000819
Application 12/490,863
Technology Center 2800
____________

Before BRADLEY R. GARRIS, GEORGE C. BEST, and
JEFFREY W. ABRAHAM, Administrative Patent Judges.

GARRIS, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134, Appellants appeal from the Examiner's
rejections of claims 1–6 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a) as anticipated by Park et
al. (WO 2009/028774 A1, published March 5, 2009) and of claims 7–16
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Park in view of Lee et al.
(FEXT-eliminated stub-alternated microstrip line for multi-gigabit/second
parallel links, 44 Electronics Letters (2008)). We have jurisdiction under 35
U.S.C. § 6.
Appeal 2013-000819
Application 12/490,863
2
We AFFIRM.

Appellants claim an apparatus comprising a plurality of micro-strip
conductors, each having a compensating portion 14 and a remaining portion
16 wherein the compensating portion compensates for crosstalk in the
remaining portion (claim 1, Fig. 1A).

A copy of representative claim 1, taken from the Claims Appendix of
the Appeal Brief, appears below.
1. An apparatus comprising:
a plurality of micro-strip conductors, each conductor having a
compensating portion and a remaining portion, the compensating portion to
compensate for crosstalk in the remaining portion, wherein the
compensating portion has a length that is substantially less than an overall
length of the micro-strip conductor.

Appellants present arguments directed to limitations in claims 1, 3, 4,
and 6 (App. Br. 9–15).1 The remaining claims on appeal, some of which
contain identical limitations to claims 1, 3, 4, and 6 but also include
additional limitations that are not separately argued, will stand or fall in
accordance with the success or failure of these arguments.

1 In the Reply Brief, Appellants present a new argument concerning the
claim 1 limitation "the compensating portion has a length that is
substantially less than an overall length of the micro-strip conductor" (Reply
Br. 6). We will not consider this new argument because it is not
accompanied by a showing of good cause explaining why the argument
could not have been presented in the Appeal Brief. See Ex parte Borden, 93
USPQ2d 1473, 1476–77 (BPAI 2010) (informative). Appellants' argument
that the Examiner failed to clearly articulate the rejections prior to the
Answer is belied by the substantive arguments Appellants presented in their
Appeal Brief. (See, e.g., App. Br. 12–13.)
Appeal 2013-000819
Application 12/490,863
3
We sustain the above rejections based on the findings of fact and
rebuttals to arguments expressed by the Examiner in the Final Action and in
the Answer with regard to argued claims 1, 3, 4, and 6. The following
comments are added for emphasis.

The Examiner finds that Park's micro-strip conductors have a
compensating portion with stubs which compensates for crosstalk in a
remaining portion (i.e., the conductor ends before and after the first and last
stubs) (Final Action 2; see also Ans. 7–8). Appellants contest this finding
(App. Br. 12–13) but fail to identify error in it with any reasonable
specificity (e.g., by explaining why crosstalk compensation would not take
place in the Park remaining portion identified by the Examiner) (see id.).

Appellants argue that ¶ 72 of Park teaches away from claims 3 and 4
(Reply Br. 8–9). This argument is not persuasive for two reasons. First,
"the question whether a reference 'teaches away' from the invention is
inapplicable to an anticipation analysis." Celeritas Tech., Ltd. v. Rockwell
Int’l Corp., 150 F.3d 1354, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 1998). Second, ¶ 72 describes a
comparative embodiment which is not relied on by the Examiner and which
does not achieve the crosstalk removal desired by Park (cf. Park ¶ 71 cited
by the Examiner at Ans. 9).

The record before us supports the Examiner's finding that Park's
compensating portion further compensates for crosstalk induced timing jitter
as required by claim 6 (Ans. 9 citing Park ¶ 57). Appellants argue that ¶ 77
of Park teaches away from claim 6 (Reply Br. 10). As above, this argument
Appeal 2013-000819
Application 12/490,863
4
lacks convincing merit because it is inapplicable to an anticipation analysis
and because it focuses on a comparative embodiment which is not relied on
by the Examiner and which does not achieve the objectives desired by Park.
In this latter regard, we emphasize that the non-bolded portion of the ¶ 77
disclosure quoted by Appellants expressly teaches "timing jitter is
minimized when the interval D between the stubs is 50 mil" (id. quoting
Park ¶ 77).

The Examiner's decision 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

cdc