Ex Parte CaoDownload PDFBoard of Patent Appeals and InterferencesAug 9, 201210852280 (B.P.A.I. Aug. 9, 2012) Copy Citation UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARKOFFICE 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. 10/852,280 05/24/2004 Jun Cao BU3537 2889 7590 08/09/2012 Brake Hughes PLC C/O Portfolio IP P.O. Box 52050 Minneapolis, MN 55402 EXAMINER LAM, TUAN THIEU ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2816 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 08/09/2012 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 JUN CAO ____________________ Appeal 2010-003222 Application 10/852,280 Technology Center 2800 ____________________ Before ROBERT E. NAPPI, ERIC S. FRAHM, and KRISTEN L. DROESCH, Administrative Patent Judges. FRAHM, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2010-003222 Application 10/852,280 2 STATEMENT OF CASE1 Introduction Appellant seeks review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of a final rejection of claims 2-10, 12-18, and 20, the only claims pending in the application on appeal. We have jurisdiction over the appeal pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. Appellant’s Disclosed Invention Appellant discloses a finite impulse response (“FIR”) de-emphasis data driver for a data transmitter or receiver that includes combining outputs of different taps. Abs. More particularly, Appellant claims an FIR de- emphasis data driver with a mixer receiving a control signal to assign relative weights for each output in the range of zero percent to one-hundred percent (claim 9) and corresponding method of maintaining near-end and far-end signal integrity of a data transmitted utilizing similarly recited control signal (claim 12). Exemplary Claim An understanding of the invention can be derived from a reading of exemplary claim 9, which is reproduced below, bracketing, numbering, and emphases added: 9. A finite impulse response (FIR) de-emphasis data driver for a data transmitter or a receiver, comprising: [1] a first tap configured to receive a data input, and further configured to generate a first output, the first tap having at least one shunt peaking inductor; 1 Our decision will make reference to Appellant’s Appeal Brief (“App. Br.,” filed May 19, 2009) and Reply Brief (“Reply Br.,” filed November 25, 2009), and the Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.,” mailed September 25, 2009). Appeal 2010-003222 Application 10/852,280 3 [2] a second tap configured to receive the first output, and further configured to generate a second output; [3] a mixer-configured to combine the first output and the second output to generate a driver output, wherein the mixer is configured to receive a control signal, which is used to assign relative weights to the first output and the second output when combining them to generate the driver output, wherein the relative weights for each output are in a range between zero percent and one-hundred percent; and [4] at least one inductive shunt peaked buffer disposed between the mixer and at least one of the first tap and the second tap. Rejection Claims 2-10, 12-18, and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Phanse (US 2003/0189998) in view of Green (US 2003/0122603).2 Ans. 3-5. Appellant’s Contentions Appellant contends (App. Br. 6-9; Reply Br. 2-3) that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 9 under § 103(a) for numerous reasons including:3 2 We note that the claims in the Appellant’s appendix are sequenced out of order. We remind Appellant that dependent claims must refer to a preceding claim. See e.g., MPEP § 608.01(n)(IV). Presently, dependent claims 2-7 depend from a subsequent claim as opposed to a preceding claim. For purposes of this appeal, we treat this informality as harmless error. 3 Appellant only presents arguments on the merits with regard to independent claim 9 (see App. Br. 5-9). Like independent claim 9, independent claim 12 also recites “a control signal” that is used “to assign relative weights... for each output [] in a range between zero percent and one-hundred percent.” Separate patentability is not argued for dependent claims 2-8, 10, 13-18, and 20 (see App. Br. 9; Reply Br. 2-3). We select claim 9 as representative of the group of claims 2-10, 12-18, and 20. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii). Appeal 2010-003222 Application 10/852,280 4 (1) Phanse does not teach the mixer is configured to receive a control signal (App. Br. 6-7); (2) Phanse does not teach the control signal is used to assign relative weights (App. Br. 7-8; Reply Br. 2); and (3) Phanse does not teach the relative weights for each output are in a range between zero percent and one-hundred percent (App. Br. 8-9; Reply Br. 3). ISSUE Based on Appellant’s arguments, the following issue is presented: Did the Examiner err in rejecting claims 2-10, 12-18, and 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over the combination of references because Phanse fails to teach or suggest a control signal that is used to assign relative weights for each output in a range between zero percent and one-hundred percent? ANALYSIS We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellant’s contentions in the Appeal Brief (App. Br. 5-9) and the Reply Brief (Reply Br. 1-3) that the Examiner has erred. We disagree with Appellant’s conclusions. We adopt as our own (1) the findings and reasons set forth by the Examiner in the action from which this appeal is taken and (2) the reasons set forth by the Examiner in the Examiner’s Answer in response to Appellant’s Appeal Brief.4 Ans. 3-6. We highlight and amplify certain teachings and suggestions of Phanse as 4 We also adopt an understanding of the Examiner’s explanation in the Answer (Ans. 3, 5), relating to how Phanse meets the recited “relative weights for each output [] in a range of zero percent to one-hundred percent.” See infra, Decision at 6. Appeal 2010-003222 Application 10/852,280 5 follows. We agree with the Examiner (Ans. 3) that, in Fig. 7B, Phanse teaches or suggests the mixer is configured to receive a control signal. Appellant’s argument (App. Br. 6-7), that the coefficients in Phanse’s Figure 7B are not “assigned based on a control signal,” is not persuasive in light of the fact that Figure 7B shows the coefficients, α1-α6, are utilized to control the output of the sum-of-products circuitry (see Ans. 3 and 5). The coefficients are a grouped signal that (i) the mixer is configured to receive, and (ii) controls the mixer, as properly identified by the Examiner (Ans. 3). We further agree with the Examiner (Ans. 3) that Phanse teaches the control signal is used to assign relative weights. Appellant's arguments (App. Br. 7-8; Reply Br. 2), that Phanse provides no disclosure to the coefficients α1-α6 shown in Figure 7B, are not persuasive in light of the Examiner's findings (Ans. 3, 5), and Phanse’s disclosure discussed infra. The coefficients α1-α6 in Figure 7B are utilized to assign the relative weights of the products in the sum-of-products circuitry 304a-304f and 306, as properly identified by the Examiner (Ans. 3, 5). Phanse discloses in paragraph 0248 that Figure 7B is linked to the disclosure of Figures 5A-F (¶¶ 150-241), as is Figure 7A (see e.g., ¶ 0247). And, the coefficients are explained throughout Phanse’s disclosure as being weighting coefficients (see e.g., ¶ 0187 describing Fig. 5B). We also agree with the Examiner (Ans. 3) that Phanse teaches the relative weights for each output are in a range between zero percent and one-hundred percent. Appellant merely concludes that relative weights between zero percent and one-hundred percent are not common knowledge (App. Br. 8) and that “a coefficient value of three would correspond with a Appeal 2010-003222 Application 10/852,280 6 weight of 300 percent” (Reply Br. 3). However, Appellant has provided no evidence on this record to support this assertion apart from a mere conclusory statement that the coefficient could be three. It is well settled that mere lawyer’s arguments and conclusory statements, which are unsupported by factual evidence, are entitled to little probative value. In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1470 (Fed. Cir. 1997); In re De Blauwe, 736 F.2d 699, 705 (Fed. Cir. 1984). This argument, while accorded little probative value, is not persuasive in light of our understanding of the Examiner’s findings (Ans. 3-6) that Phanse teaches or suggests relative weights for each output are in a range between zero percent and one-hundred percent (Ans. 3- 6). The Examiner conveyed an example of conditions of the coefficient in which it would weight an output at zero percent or one-hundred percent (Ans. 3-6). From our understanding of the Examiner's examples, when all of the coefficients α1-α6 are zero, then the relative weight for each of products in the sum of products would be zero percent (Ans. 3-5). Additionally, from our understanding of the Examiner's examples, when one of the coefficients α1-α6 is other than zero and the remainder are zero, then the relative weight for the output would have been one-hundred percent (Ans. 3, 5). In view of the foregoing, Appellant has not sufficiently shown that Phanse, or the combination of Phanse and Green as applied in the rejection, fails to teach or suggest the contested subject matter recited in claim 9. Accordingly, we will sustain the rejection of representative claim 9. We will also sustain the rejection of : (i) claims 2-8, and 10 which ultimately depend from claim 9; (ii) remaining independent claim 12; and (iii) claims 13-18 Appeal 2010-003222 Application 10/852,280 7 and 20 which depend from claim 12 for the same reasons as representative claim 9. CONCLUSION The Examiner has not erred in rejecting claims 2-10, 12-18, and 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over the combination of Phanse and Green because Phanse teaches or suggests a control signal that is used to assign relative weights for each output in a range between zero percent and one-hundred percent. DECISION The Examiner’s decision to reject claims 2-10, 12-18, and 20 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 tj Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation