Ex Parte Berke

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Oct 23, 2013

12187513 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 23, 2013)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte STUART ALLEN BERKE
____________________

Appeal 2011-007506
Application 12/187,513
Technology Center 2800
____________________

Before DEBORAH KATZ, JOHN G. NEW, and HUNG H. BUI,
Administrative Patent Judges.

BUI, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant
1
seeks our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the
Examiner‟s final rejection of claims 1-20. We have jurisdiction under 35
U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
2

1
The real party in interest is Dell Products L.P.
2
Our decision refers to Appellant‟s Appeal Brief filed January 4, 2010
(“App. Br.”); Reply Brief filed February 28, 2011 (“Reply Br.”); Examiner‟s
Answer mailed January 25, 2011 (“Ans.”); Final Office Action mailed
September 15, 2009 (“Final Rej.”); and the original Specification filed
August 8, 2007 (“Spec.”).
Appeal 2011-007506
Application 12/187,513

2

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant’s Invention
A typical information handling system is equipped with a number of
sockets on a motherboard to accommodate insertion of modules, via module
connectors. See Spec., p. 2, ll. 1-17. However, when a module is not
properly inserted into a motherboard socket, the module does not operate,
and the system does not have the ability to detect an improper electrical
connection, resulting in a poor user experience. Id., p. 3, ll. 1-2. As a result,
Appellant seeks to detect a module‟s presence and proper insertion of such
module in an information handling system. Id., p.3, ll. 4-5. According to
Appellant, socket pins on opposing ends of a socket are borrowed from
normal functionality for use in detection of the presence of an inserted
module and then returned to normal functionality for use by an inserted
module. Id., p. 6, ll. 21-28. If neither pin on opposing ends of a socket is
detected, the socket is indicated as not having a module inserted therein. If
one end of a socket has a pin in communication with the inserted module
and the opposing end does not, then a faulty insertion is indicated. Id., p. 7,
ll. 1-6.
Claims on Appeal
Claims 1, 9, and 16 are the independent claims on appeal. Claim 1 is
illustrative of Appellant‟s invention, and is reproduced below with disputed
limitations emphasized:
1. An information handling system comprising:
a processor operable to process information;
at least one socket interfaced with the processor, the
socket having plural pins aligned to electrically communicate
with pins of a module connector, the socket having a first
Appeal 2011-007506
Application 12/187,513

3

ground pin associated with a first end and a second ground pin
associated with a second end opposite the first end; and
a detection circuit associated with the socket and
operable to selectively interface with the first and second
ground pins to detect whether a module connector is in
electrical communication with the first and second ground pins.

Evidence Considered
Brown US 5,568,610 Oct. 22, 1996
Muchnick et al. (“Muchnick”) US 5,636,347 Jun. 3, 1997
Bhadsavle et al. (“Bhadsavle”) US 6,789,149 B1 Sep. 7, 2004
Bains et al. (“Bains”) US 2005/0138267 A1 Jun. 23, 2005

Examiner’s Rejections
(1) Claims 1-3, 9-17 and 19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) as being anticipated by Muchnick. Ans. 3-4.
(2) Claims 1-6 and 9-20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
being anticipated by Bhadsavle. Ans. 4.
(3) Claim 6 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Bhadsavle and Brown. Final Rej. 4-5.
(4) Claims 7-8 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Bhadsavle and Bains. Final Rej. 5.

Issues on Appeal
Based on Appellant‟s arguments, the dispositive issue on appeal is
whether the Examiner erred in rejecting independent claims 1, 9, and 16
under 35 U.S.C. §102(b) as being anticipated by: (1) Muchnick, and
separately, by (2) Bhadsavle. In particular, the issue turns on whether
Appeal 2011-007506
Application 12/187,513

4

Muchnick or Bhadsavle discloses all elements of Appellant‟s independent
claims 1, 9, and 16. App. Br. 3-5.

ANALYSIS
§ 102(b) Rejection of Claims 1-3, 9-17 and 19 based on Muchnick
The Examiner finds Muchnick discloses an information-handling
system comprising:
a processor (col. 3, lines 33-43) operable to process
information; at least one socket (13) interfaced with the
processor, the socket having plural pins aligned to electrically
communicate with pins of a module connector, the socket
having a first ground pin (Fig. 4) associated with a first end
and a second ground pin (Fig. 4) associated with a second end
opposite the first end; and a detection circuit (Fig. 6)
associated with the socket and operable to selectively interface
with the first and second ground pins to detect whether a
module connector is in electrical communication with the first
and second ground pins. With regard to claims 9-15, Muchnick
et al disclose the structure which operates according to the
steps claimed.

Ans. 3-4 (emphasis added).
Appellant disputes the Examiner‟s factual findings regarding
Muchnick. App. Br. 10-11. In particular, Appellant acknowledges
Muchnick discloses “the use of ground pins at opposing ends of a connector
to detect insertion of a card into the connector with a signal at either of the
ground pins,” (App. Br. 3) but makes several arguments against the
application of Muchnick. For example, Appellant argues:
Muchnick fails to teach, disclose or suggest “to detect whether
a module connector is in electrical communication with the first
and second ground pins,” as recited by Claim 1. Muchnick uses
detection of either end of a module as an indication of module
Appeal 2011-007506
Application 12/187,513

5

insertion to adjust a computer to accept the module, and does
not address the use of both opposing end pins to detect
complete insertion of the module.”

App. Br. 3-4 (emphasis added).
Appellant further argues:
Muchnick fails to teach, disclose or suggest "first module
connector pin interfaces with the first socket pin and a second
module connector pin interfaces with the second socket pin" as
recited by Claim 9.”

Id., at 4 (emphasis added).
Similarly, Appellant also argues:
Muchnick fails to teach, disclose or suggest "a pin of the
socket interfaces with a pin of a module at each of opposing
ends of the socket and module," as recited by Claim 16.

Id., at 5 (emphasis added).
We do not find Appellant‟s arguments sufficiently persuasive to
demonstrate reversible error in the Examiner‟s position. See In re Jung, 637
F.3d 1356, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2011). At the outset, we note that independent
claims 9 and 16 are broader than independent claim 1 in that only general
pins at opposing ends of a module and a socket are defined in claims 9 and
16, whereas a specific type of pins, i.e., ground pins, at opposing ends of a
module and socket are defined in claim 1. Regardless, both types of pins at
opposing ends of a module and a socket are shown in FIG. 2A and FIG. 4,
and described in the corresponding text of Muchnick, i.e., different types of
pins of a module connector 11 and a host frame connector 13.
We find the Examiner‟s factual findings regarding Muchnick are
supported by a preponderance of evidence. In particular, Muchnick
Appeal 2011-007506
Application 12/187,513

6

discloses a pair of circuits and pins located at opposite ends of a module
connector for detecting the onset of an insertion of a module into a socket,
via sensing of either or both connector ends in the process of insertion. See
Muchnick, col. 1, ll. 55-63.
FIG. 2A of Muchnick is reproduced below.

FIG. 2A of Muchnick shows a pin configuration
of a module connector 11 of a PC card module 10.

FIG. 4 of Muchnick is reproduced below.

FIG. 4 of Muchnick shows a pin configuration
of a host frame connector 13.

As correctly found by the Examiner, Muchnick discloses ground pins
1, 35, 34, 68 at opposing ends of the socket used to detect whether a module
Appeal 2011-007506
Application 12/187,513

7

connector is in electrical communication, via these ground pins. Ans. 5
(citing Muchnick, FIG. 4, items 1, 35, 34, 68). These ground pins 1, 35, 34,
68 of a host frame connector 13, as shown in FIG. 4 of Muchnick, are also
described for mating with corresponding ground and Vcc contacts of a
module (PC card), as shown in FIG. 2A of Muchnick. Id., at 5-6.
Nevertheless, Appellant disputes that:
Muchnick “makes no determination of electrical
communication „with first and second ground pins‟ because
Muchnick determines insertion if only one pin is detected
(3:21-23).”

Reply Br. 1 (emphasis added).
However, Appellant‟s dispute is based on an incomplete reading of
Muchnick. When the module (PC card) 10 is inserted into a socket of a host
frame, i.e., host frame connector 13, a detection circuit 20, as shown in FIG.
6, is used to detect whether the module connector 11 is in electrical
communication with the ground pins of the socket. In the example of FIG.
6, “pins 1 and 34 are shown connected to system ground while „ground pins‟
35 and 68 are connected to PC card insertion detection system 20.”
Muchnick, col. 3, ll. 19-21.
In sum, and contrary to Appellant‟s contention, Muchnick discloses
(1) determination of electrical communication via first and second ground
pins, as recited in Appellant‟s claim 1; (2) the interface between connector
pins and socket pins, as recited in Appellant‟s claim 9; and (3) pins at
opposing ends of the socket and module, as recited in Appellant‟s claim 16.
For the reasons set forth above, Appellant has not persuaded us of
reversible error in the Examiner‟s anticipation rejection of independent
claims 1, 9 and 16 and their respective dependent claims 2-8, 10-15, and 17-
Appeal 2011-007506
Application 12/187,513

8

20, which were not separately argued, under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b).
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner‟s rejection of Appellant‟s claims 1-20
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Muchnick.

§ 102(b)/103(a) Rejections of Claims 1-20 based on
Bhadsavle, Brown and Bains

Appellant also contends that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1-
6 and 9-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Bhadsavle.
App. Br. 3-5. As an initial matter, we note Appellant only presents
arguments against the § 102 rejection of independent claims 1, 9 and 16, and
does not dispute: (1) the § 102(b) rejection of dependent claims 2-5, 10-15
and 17-20 as being anticipated by Bhadsavle; and (2) the § 103(a) rejection
of dependent claims 6-8 as being obvious over Bhadsavle, Brown and Bains.
As such, the final rejections of these claims are affirmed, and any dispute
regarding these rejections is deemed waived. See Ex Parte Frye, 94 USPQ2d
1072, 1075 (BPAI 2010).
However, we need not reach Appellant‟s arguments regarding
Bhadsavle, Brown and Bains since the Examiner‟s rejection of claims 1-20
based on Muchnick is sustained. Nevertheless, we note that Bhadsavle
discloses the same module connector and socket with pins, as shown, for
example, in FIGS. 2A-2H, and a detection circuit 300 used to detect
improper mating of the connector, as shown in FIG. 3. See Bhadsavle,
FIGS. 2A-2H, FIG. 3, and Abstract.

Appeal 2011-007506
Application 12/187,513

9

CONCLUSION
On the record before us, we conclude that the Examiner has not erred
in rejecting claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) by Muchnick. Because
we have affirmed at least one ground of rejection with respect to each claim
on appeal, the Examiner‟s decision is affirmed. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(a)(1).

DECISION
As such, we AFFIRM the Examiner‟s final rejections of claims 1-20.
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

alw