Ex Parte Barnes et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jan 11, 2008

09901531 (B.P.A.I. Jan. 11, 2008)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte BRIAN C. BARNES, DAVID W. SMITH, TERRY L. COLE,
RODNEY SCHMIDT, GEOFFREY S. STRONGIN,
and MICHAEL BARCLAY
____________

Appeal 2007-2631
Application 09/901,531
Technology Center 2100
____________

Decided: January 11, 2008
____________

Before JAMES D. THOMAS, HOWARD B. BLANKENSHIP, and
JAY P. LUCAS, Administrative Patent Judges.

BLANKENSHIP, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. §§ 6(b), 134(a) from the final
rejection of claims 1-4, 6-15, and 17-21.
We reverse.
Appeal 2007-2631
Application 09/901,531

Representative claim 1 reads as follows:
1. A communications system, comprising:
a physical layer hardware unit adapted to communicate data over a
communications channel in accordance with assigned transmission
parameters, the physical layer hardware unit being adapted to receive an
incoming signal over the communications channel and sample the incoming
signal to generate a digital received signal; and

a processing unit adapted to execute a software driver including
program instructions adapted to extract control codes from the digital
received signal, generate an authentication code based on at least one
extracted control code, and transfer the control codes and the authentication
code to the physical layer hardware unit, wherein the physical layer
hardware unit is adapted to signal a security violation in response to the
control codes being inconsistent with the authentication code.

The Examiner relies on the following references as evidence of
unpatentability:
Nay US 5,237,567 Aug. 17, 1993
Spelman US 5,680,458 Oct. 21, 1997
Mergard US 5,881,248 Mar. 9, 1999
Whitmire US 6,115,817 Sep. 5, 2000
Roeck US 6,594,305 B1 Jul. 15, 2003

Claims 1, 12, and 21 are independent. Claims 1, 7-12, and 18-21
stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Roeck
and Nay. Dependent claims 2-4, 6, 13-15, and 17 stand rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over the basic combination of Roeck
and Nay, in addition to the teachings of Spelman, Mergard, or Whitmire.
Claims 5 and 16 are objected to as being dependent on rejected claims.
Appellants argue in the briefs that the Examiner has used improper
motivation to combine the teachings of Roeck and Nay as applied against
2
Appeal 2007-2631
Application 09/901,531

the independent claims. Appellants also argue that, even if combined, the
references do not contain all the claim elements.
The Examiner finds that Roeck discloses a hardware unit (cable
modem) adapted to receive an incoming signal over a communications
channel, and which accepts control codes over the communications channel.
The Examiner further finds that Roeck teaches that the hardware unit
communicates with assigned transmission parameters. (Ans. 3.) As
described in columns 7 and 8 of Roeck, the modem receives data for
adjusting and configuring the modem. Parameters may include power level
offset, timing offset, and frequency adjustments.
The rejection applied against the independent claims relies on Nay
(col. 37, ll. 35-51) for the teaching of generating an authentication code from
data and transferring the data and authentication code to a unit, and signaling
a security violation if the codes are inconsistent. (Ans. 3.)
Nay at column 37, lines 35 through 63 teaches bus data integrity by
using an address parity bit to provide an alarm if the address over the bus is
faulty. Further, seven extra bits are sent over the bus to accompany the data
word, to allow discovery of errors that might occur during passage over the
system bus, as well as any storage errors.
Instant claim 1 requires, inter alia, a processing unit adapted to
execute a software driver including program instructions adapted to extract
control codes from the digital received signal, generate an authentication
code based on at least one extracted control code, and transfer the control
codes and the authentication code to the physical layer hardware unit.
Even assuming the teachings of Roeck and Nay could be properly
combined, we agree with Appellants that the references fail to teach at least
3
Appeal 2007-2631
Application 09/901,531

the above-noted limitations of claim 1. The rejection fails to show a
software driver that extracts control codes from a received signal, and
transfer the control codes along with the generated authentication code to a
physical layer hardware unit as claimed.
Instant claim 12 requires the steps of receiving digital data over a
communications channel, and transferring extracted control codes and a
generated authentication code to a physical layer hardware unit of the
transceiver. Instant claim 21 recites similar limitations. The rejection fails
to show disclosure or suggestion of at least these elements of the claims.
We do not find all the teachings in Roeck and Nay that are attributed
to the references. The rejection does not offer any convincing explanation
with respect to how or why the relevant claim recitations might be
disregarded. The references of Spelman, Mergard, and Whitmire as applied
in further combination against dependent claims do not remedy the
deficiencies in the rejection applied against the independent claims. We
therefore cannot sustain any of the rejections on appeal.

REVERSED

ce

WILLIAMS, MORGAN & AMERSON
10333 RICHMOND, SUITE 1100
HOUSTON TX 77042
4