10727102 (B.P.A.I. Sep. 15, 2011)

Ex Parte Barrenscheen et al

Board of Patent Appeals and InterferencesSep 15, 2011

10727102 (B.P.A.I. Sep. 15, 2011)

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. 10/727,102 12/02/2003 Jens Barrenscheen J0658.0018 4397 38881 7590 09/15/2011 DICKSTEIN SHAPIRO LLP 1633 Broadway NEW YORK, NY 10019 EXAMINER LEE, CHUN KUAN ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2181 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 09/15/2011 PAPER 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. PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________________ BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS AND INTERFERENCES ____________________ Ex parte JENS BARRENSCHEEN, PETER ROHM, ANGELA ROHM, HANNES ESTL, AXEL AUE, JENS GRAF, and HERMAN ROOZENBEEK ____________________ Appeal 2009-015424 Application 10/727,102 Technology Center 2100 ____________________ Before KALYAN K. DESHPANDE, DAVID M. KOHUT, and ERIC B. CHEN, Administrative Patent Judges. DESHPANDE, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2009-015424 Application 10/727,102 2 STATEMENT OF CASE 1 The Appellants seek review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of a final rejection of claims 2-4, 6-20, and 22-25, the only claims pending in the application on appeal. Claims 1, 5 and 21 have been cancelled. We have jurisdiction over the appeal pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We REVERSE. The Appellants invented an arrangement comprising a first semiconductor chip and a second semiconductor chip connected thereto. An understanding of the invention can be derived from a reading of exemplary claim 23, which is reproduced below [bracketed matter and some paragraphing added]: 23. An arrangement comprising: [1] a first semiconductor chip; and [2] a plurality of second semiconductor chips which are connected to and drives electrical loads based on a timing defined by load control data; [3] a first data line via which the second semiconductor chip transmits diagnostic data, which represent at least one of states prevailing in and events occurring in the second semiconductor chip, to the first semiconductor chip; [4] a chip select line associated with each of the second semiconductor chips; and [5] a single, second data line via which the first semiconductor chip transmits the load control data and pilot data which control the second semiconductor chips; [6] wherein the load control data and the pilot data are transmitted in units of frames, and wherein the load control data 1 Our decision will make reference to the Appellants’ Appeal Brief (“App. Br.,” filed Apr. 29, 2009) and Reply Brief (“Reply Br.,” filed Aug. 19, 2009), and the Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.,” mailed Jul. 16, 2009), and Final Rejection (“Final Rej.,” mailed Apr. 15, 2008). Appeal 2009-015424 Application 10/727,102 3 frames and the pilot data frames are transmitted using time- division multiplexing; and [7] wherein a first portion of data transmitted in a frame is intended for a first, second semiconductor chip, and a second portion of the data transmitted in this frame is intended for a second, second semiconductor chip as designated by data on the chip select line. REFERENCES The Examiner relies on the following prior art: Jones Bishop Rehmann Hastings US 3,985,962 US 6,154,509 US 6,578,940 B2 US 6,772,251 B1 Oct. 12, 1976 Nov. 28, 2000 Jun. 17, 2003 Aug. 3, 2004 Balasundram US 2003/0103519 A1 Jun. 5, 2003 Appellants Admitted Prior Art (“AAPA”) Christopher E. Strangio, Data Communication Basics, http://www.camiresearch.com/Data_Com_Basics/data_com_tutorial.html, 1993-2006 (“DCB”). REJECTIONS Claims 2-4, 6-8, 10, 12, and 23-25 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C §103(a) as being unpatentable over AAPA and Balasundram. Ans. 3. Claim 9 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C §103(a) as being unpatentable over AAPA, Balasundram, and Jones. Ans. 12. Claims 11, 15, and 17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C §103(a) as being unpatentable over AAPA, Balasundram, and DCB. Ans. 13. Claims 13, 14, and 22 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C §103(a) as being unpatentable over AAPA, Balasundram, and Hastings. Ans. 15. Claim 16 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C §103(a) as being unpatentable over AAPA, Balasundram, DCB, and Bishop. Ans. 17. Appeal 2009-015424 Application 10/727,102 4 Claims 18-20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C §103(a) as being unpatentable over AAPA, Balasundram, and Rehmann. Ans. 18. ISSUE The issue of whether the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 2-4, 6-20, and 22-25 turns on whether the combination of AAPA and Balasundram describe limitation [7] of claim 23 and as recited in claims 24-25. FACTS PERTINENT TO THE ISSUES The following enumerated Findings of Fact (FF) are supported by a preponderance of the evidence. Facts Related to Appellants’ Disclosure 01. The Specification describes conventional devices that include an arrangement between a first and second semiconductor chips. Specification ¶ 0002. Facts Related to the Prior Art Balasundram 02. Balasundram is directed to an improved time division multiplexing system to control multiple applications, including motor vehicle functions. Balasundram ¶ 0003. 03. The time division multiplexing system uses multiple byte waveforms that have a fixed leading byte at the start of each waveform cycle. Each subsequent byte can have a fixed leading and trailing value. The leading byte signifies the “address” for the Appeal 2009-015424 Application 10/727,102 5 message and is unique to the communicating transmitter and receiver pairs. Balasundram ¶ 0039. 04. Data signals are sent through the system during each of a series of time intervals using multiple byte waveform technology. Balasundram ¶ 0046. Jones 05. Jones is directed to a method of priority assignment in a time- division multiplex communication system comprising a loop to which a plurality of terminals of different priority classes and at least one supervisory unit are attached. Jones 1:16-20. Hastings 06. Hastings is directed to a bi-directional serial interface which may interleave the data bits sent between a master device and a slave device. Hastings 1:7-10. Bishop 07. Bishop is directed to systems for multiplexing several serial data input channels onto a single serial data output channel. Bishop 1:5-6. Rehmann 08. Rehmann is directed to printing mechanisms, such as inkjet printers or inject plotters. Rehmann 1:3-4. Appeal 2009-015424 Application 10/727,102 6 DCB 09. DCB is directed to a discussion on data communications. DCB 1. ANALYSIS Claims 2-4, 6-8, 10, 12, and 23-25 rejected under 35 U.S.C §103(a) as being unpatentable over AAPA and Balasundram The Appellants first contend that the combination of AAPA and Balasundram fail to teach or suggest “a first portion of data transmitted in a frame is intended for a first, second semiconductor chip, and a second portion of data is transmitted in this frame is intended for a second, second semiconductor chip,” as required by independent claims 23-25. App. Br. 7- 8. The Appellants specifically argue that Balasundram describes transmitting data to various receivers at separate time intervals and not concurrently via the same frame, as required by limitation [7]. Reply Br. 2- 3. We agree with the Appellants. Limitation [7] requires a first portion of data is transmitted to a first semiconductor chip and a second portion of the same data is transmitted to a second semiconductor chip. Limitation [7] specifically requires that the data is transmitted in the same frame. Balasundram describes a time division multiplexing system. FF 02. The system uses multiple byte waveforms that consist of a fixed leading byte that signifies the “address” for the message. FF 03. The “address” is unique to the transmitter and receiver pair such that the receiver ignores all signals not preceded by the address. FF 03. That is, while Balasundram describes that signals are transmitted to multiple receivers on the same line using time Appeal 2009-015424 Application 10/727,102 7 division multiplexing, each time period includes one frame that is only transmitted to a single receiver. FF 03-04. As discussed supra, this is contrasted with the claimed invention requiring that data from a single frame is intended for more than one receiver or semiconductor chips. Although the Examiner correctly finds that each waveform includes an identifier for a specific receiver, Balasundram fails to describe that a portion of that data is intended for a first semiconductor chip and a second portion of that same frame is intended for a second semiconductor chip. Since Balasundram fails to describe this limitation, we find that the Examiner has failed to establish a prima facie case of obviousness. Since this issue is dispositive as to the rejection of these claims, we need not reach the remaining arguments raised by the Appellants against these rejections. Claim 9 rejected under 35 U.S.C §103(a) as being unpatentable over AAPA, Balasundram, and Jones The Appellants contend that dependent claim 9 is allowable for the same reasons asserted supra in support of independent claims 23-25. App. Br. 9. We agree with the Appellants. The Appellants’ arguments were found to be persuasive supra and are persuasive here for the same reasons. Claims 11, 15 and 17 rejected under 35 U.S.C §103(a) as being unpatentable over AAPA, Balasundram, and DCB The Appellants contend that dependent claims 11, 15, and 17 are allowable for the same reasons asserted supra in support of independent claims 23-25. App. Br. 9. We agree with the Appellants. The Appellants’ Appeal 2009-015424 Application 10/727,102 8 arguments were found to be persuasive supra and are persuasive here for the same reasons. Claims 13, 14, and 22 rejected under 35 U.S.C §103(a) as being unpatentable over AAPA, Balasundram, and Hastings The Appellants contend that dependent claims 13, 14, and 22 are allowable for the same reasons asserted supra in support of independent claims 23-25. App. Br. 9. We agree with the Appellants. The Appellants’ arguments were found to be persuasive supra and are persuasive here for the same reasons. Claim 16 rejected under 35 U.S.C §103(a) as being unpatentable over AAPA, Balasundram, DCB, and Bishop The Appellants contend that dependent claim 16 is allowable for the same reasons asserted supra in support of independent claims 23-25. App. Br. 9. We agree with the Appellants. The Appellants’ arguments were found to be persuasive supra and are persuasive here for the same reasons. Claims 18-20 rejected under 35 U.S.C §103(a) as being unpatentable over AAPA, Balasundram, and Rehmann The Appellants contend that dependent claims 18-20 are allowable for the same reasons asserted supra in support of independent claims 23-25. App. Br. 9. We agree with the Appellants. The Appellants’ arguments were found to be persuasive supra and are persuasive here for the same reasons. Appeal 2009-015424 Application 10/727,102 9 CONCLUSIONS OF LAW The Examiner erred in rejecting claims 2-4, 6-8, 10, 12, and 23-25 under 35 U.S.C §103(a) as being unpatentable over AAPA and Balasundram. The Examiner erred in rejecting claim 9 under 35 U.S.C §103(a) as being unpatentable over AAPA, Balasundram, and Jones. The Examiner erred in rejecting claims 11, 15, and 17 under 35 U.S.C §103(a) as being unpatentable over AAPA, Balasundram, and DCB. The Examiner erred in rejecting claims 13, 14, and 22 under 35 U.S.C §103(a) as being unpatentable over AAPA, Balasundram, and Hastings. The Examiner erred in rejecting claim 16 under 35 U.S.C §103(a) as being unpatentable over AAPA, Balasundram, DCB, and Bishop. The Examiner erred in rejecting claims 18-20 under 35 U.S.C §103(a) as being unpatentable over AAPA, Balasundram, and Rehmann. DECISION To summarize, our decision is as follows.  The rejection of claims 2-4, 6-8, 10, 12 and 23-25 under 35 U.S.C §103(a) as being unpatentable over AAPA and Balasundram is not sustained.  The rejection of claim 9 under 35 U.S.C §103(a) as being unpatentable over AAPA, Balasundram, and Jones is not sustained.  The rejection of claims 11, 15 and 17 under 35 U.S.C §103(a) as being unpatentable over AAPA, Balasundram, and DCB is not sustained. Appeal 2009-015424 Application 10/727,102 10  The rejection of claims 13-14 and 22 under 35 U.S.C §103(a) as being unpatentable over AAPA, Balasundram, and Hastings is not sustained.  The rejection of claim 16 under 35 U.S.C §103(a) as being unpatentable over AAPA, Balasundram, DCB, and Bishop is not sustained.  The rejection of claims 18-20 under 35 U.S.C §103(a) as being unpatentable over AAPA, Balasundram, and Rehmann is not sustained. REVERSED ELD