Ex Parte Cao

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Aug 9, 2012

10852280 (B.P.A.I. Aug. 9, 2012)

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