Ex Parte Chan et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jul 17, 2017

13688887 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 17, 2017)

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.
13/688,887 11/29/2012 KOK HONG CHAN P50535 8064
104333 7590 07/19/2017
International IP Law Group, P.L.L.C.
13231 Champion Forest Drive
Suite 410
Houston, TX 77069
EXAMINER
BORROMEO, JUANITO C
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2184
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/19/2017 ELECTRONIC
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.
Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the
following e-mail address(es):
eofficeaction @ appcoll.com
Intel_Docketing @ iiplg.com
inteldocs_docketing @ cpaglobal. com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte KOK HONG CHAN and HUIMIN CHEN
Appeal 2017-003954
Application 13/688,8871
Technology Center 2100
Before JASON V. MORGAN, BETH Z. SHAW, and KAMRAN JIVANI,
Administrative Patent Judges.
MORGAN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal, under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), from the
Examiner’s Final Rejection of claims 1, 2, 4—7, 9-14, and 16—20. Claims 3,
8, and 15 are canceled. App. Br. 18, 19, and 21. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM-IN-PART and enter NEW GROUNDS OF
REJECTION.
1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Intel Corporation.
Br. 2.
Appeal 2017-003954
Application 13/688,887
INVENTION
The invention is a “method for detecting device disconnect” by
receiving “a disconnect indication comprising a voltage swing” and also
receiving a “start-of-frame indication that indicates that a threshold
consecutive number of bits of the same data value.” Abst.
REPRESENTATIVE CLAIM (emph. added)
1. A method, comprising:
receiving a disconnect indication comprising a voltage swing
occurring on a data channel for a peripheral device;
receiving a start-of-frame indication that indicates that a
threshold consecutive number of bits of the same data value has
been received, wherein receiving the start-of-frame indication
comprises receiving a packet comprising a data segment
comprising no more than a predetermined number of
consecutive static bits and an end-of-packet (EOP) segment
comprising more than the predetermined number of consecutive
static bits', and
sending a device disconnect message to a host based on the
disconnect indication and the start-of-frame indication.
REJECTIONS
Claims 1,2, 4—7, 9-14, and 16—202 are rejected, under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a), as obvious over Zolnowsky (US 2002/0095540 Al; July
18, 2002), Warren (US 7,003,599 B2; Feb. 21, 2006), and a USB 2.0
2 The Examiner incorrectly lists claims 1—20 as being rejected (Final Act. 2),
even though claims 3,8, and 15 were previously canceled (see Amend. 2
(Dec. 19, 2014)). We hold this error harmless.
2
Appeal 2017-003954
Application 13/688,887
Specification, Apr. 27, 2000, available at http://www.usb.org/developers/
docs/usb20_docs/ (“USB 2.0”). Final Act. (July 1, 2015).
ANALYSIS
Claims 1, 2, 6—7, and 14
Claim 1 recites a start-of-frame indication that, as Appellants note,
includes a “number of consecutive static bits in an end-of-packet (EOP)
segment [that] is equal to or larger than a defined [start-of-frame] threshold.”
App. Br. 9.
Appellants argue the applied prior art does not teach or suggest a start-
of-frame indication for a threshold consecutive number of static bits.
App. Br. 10-13; see also Reply Br. 3. In support, Appellants contend “[t]he
frame delineation marker of Warren is a pattern . . . [that] does not include a
‘threshold consecutive number of bits of the same data value ... 7”
App. Br. 11; see also Reply Br. 3. Appellants further contend that, though
USB 2.0’s end-of-packet segment is lengthened to a continuous string of 40
static bits, “[n]othing in USB 2.0 or as referenced by the Examiner discloses
a threshold consecutive number of bits.” App. Br. 13 (orig. emph.); see also
Reply Br. 3^4. In particular, Appellants argue that “USB 2.0 simply
describes a continuous string of 40 bits,” but fails to “disclose ‘more than’
this number.” Id. We are not persuaded by this argument because 40 static
bits, as found in USB 2.0, by definition exceeds, for example, 39 static bits.
Thus, the receipt of an end-of-packet segment containing 40 static bits
indicates the receipt of more than 39 static bits.
Appellants further argue that “Warren is devoid of a data packet that
includes a data segment mid an EOP segment as presently claimed” (i.e.,
3
Appeal 2017-003954
Application 13/688,887
having more than a predetermined number of consecutive static bits). App.
Br. 12. Appellants do not provide persuasive arguments or evidence with
regards to the Examiner’s use of the prior art as teaching or suggesting a
claimed data packet containing both a data segment and an end-of-packet
segment. In particular, Appellants do not persuasively show error in the
Examiner’s reliance on USB 2.0 to teach or suggest extending the end-of-
packet segment to contain 40 (i.e., more than 39) consecutive static bits.
Therefore, Appellants’ argument is unpersuasive.
For these reasons, we sustain the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
rejection of claim 1, and claims 1,2, 6—7, and 14, which Appellants do not
argue separately. App. Br. 14.
Claims 4, 9, and 16
For the reasons discussed below in our entry of a new ground of
rejection with respect to claims 4, 9, and 16, these claims are indefinite
because the recitation “the predetermined number of consecutive static bits”
differs in meaning between claims 4, 9, and 16 and the respective
independent claims from which they depend. Therefore, we do not reach the
merits of the prior art rejections of claims 4, 9, and 16, and summarily
reverse their rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). See In re Steele, 305 F.2d
859, 862 (CCPA 1962).
Claims 10 and 17
Appellants contend the Examiner erred because “Zolnowsky simply
discloses a connect/disconnect functionality .... [without] disclosing] a
device disconnect message.” App. Br. 15 (citing Zolnowsky 130).
4
Appeal 2017-003954
Application 13/688,887
Appellants’ argument accords with Zolnowsky’s cited teaching that
“hub repeater 310 supports a variety of functions, including connectivity
setup, exception handling (such as bus fault detection and recovery) and
connect/disconnect detect and the like.” Zolnowsky 130 (italicized
emphasis added). That is, the cited portion of Zolnowsky teaches or
suggests detecting that a device has been disconnected without further
teaching or suggesting using a disconnect message in the circumstances
identified in the claim.
The Examiner does not present additional findings with respect to the
disputed recitation. Therefore, we agree with Appellants that the
Examiner’s findings do not show that the combination of Zolnowsky,
Warren, and USB 2.0 teaches or suggests “the repeater state machine to send
the device disconnect message if both the disconnect indication and the start-
of-frame indication are received,” as recited in claim 10.
Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
rejection of claim 10, and claim 17, which contains the same recitation.
Claims 11 and 18
Appellants contend the Examiner erred because “Zolnowsky simply
discloses a connect/disconnect functionality .... [without] disclosing] any
sort of voltage swing.” App. Br. 15 (citing Zolnowsky 130). Appellants’
argument accords with Zolnowsky’s cited teaching, which does not address
the use of voltage in the manner claimed. Therefore, we agree with
Appellants that the Examiner’s findings do not show that Zolnowsky teaches
or suggests “wherein the disconnect envelope detector determines that the
voltage swing in a set of wires between the second communication port and
5
Appeal 2017-003954
Application 13/688,887
the peripheral device port exceeds a voltage threshold,” as recited in claim
11.
Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
rejection of claim 11, and claim 18, which contains the same recitation.
Claims 12 and 19
Appellants contend the Examiner erred because “the ‘Hub state
machines’ of Zolnowsky do not include any analog integrator circuit.” App.
Br. 16. Appellants’ argument accords with Zolnowsky’s cited teaching of
Hub State Machines, which are depicted in a block diagram without the
particular details recited in claim 12. See Zolnowsky Fig. 3 (cited by Final
Act. 5). Therefore, we agree with Appellants that the Examiner’s findings
do not show the combination of Zolnowsky, Warren, and USB 2.0 teaches or
suggests “an analog integrator circuit communicatively coupled to the
unsquelch circuit, the analog integrator circuit configured to determine that
the threshold consecutive number of bits of the same data value in a packet
received by either of the first or second communication ports has been met,”
as recited in claim 12.
Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
rejection of claim 12, and claim 19, which contains the same recitation.
Claims 13 and 20
Appellants contend the Examiner erred because “the ‘Hub state
machines’ of Zolnowsky do not include any digital counter circuit.” App.
Br. 16. Appellants’ argument accords with Zolnowsky’s cited teaching of
Hub State Machines, which are depicted in a block diagram without the
particular details recited in claim 13. See Zolnowsky Fig. 3 (cited by Final
6
Appeal 2017-003954
Application 13/688,887
Act. 5). Therefore, we agree with Appellants that the Examiner’s findings
do not show the combination of Zolnowsky, Warren, and USB 2.0 teaches or
suggests “a digital counter circuit communicatively coupled to the unsquelch
circuit, configured to determine that the threshold consecutive number of
bits of the same data value in a packet received by the either of the first or
second communication ports has been met,” as recited in claim 13.
Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
rejection of claim 12, and claim 20, which contains the same recitation.
NEW GROUNDS OF REJECTION
Claims 4, 9, and 16
Claim 4 recites “the predetermined number of consecutive static bits
in the data segment” even though claim 1, from which claim 4 depends,
merely recites “a data segment comprising no more than a predetermined
number of consecutive static bits” (emphasis added). That is, the claimed
data segment of independent claim 1 may have up to a predetermined
number of consecutive static bits, but may have fewer bits as well given a
reasonably broad interpretation of the claim language. Thus, the claim 4
recitation directed to the predetermined number of consecutive static bits in
the data segment changes the meaning of “predetermined number of
consecutive static bits” from being a maximum number of consecutive static
bits that could be in the data segment to an exact number of consecutive
static bits that are in the data segment.
Because the meaning of “the predetermined number of consecutive
static bits” differs from clam 1 to claim 4, this recitation lacks antecedent
basis in claim 4. That is, even though the words are the same in independent
7
Appeal 2017-003954
Application 13/688,887
claim 1 and dependent claim 4, their change in meaning creates an
ambiguity that renders dependent claim 4 indefinite.
Accordingly, we newly reject claim 4 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) as
being indefinite. We similarly newly reject claims 9 and 16, which are
similarly defective.
Claims 11 and 18
Although we agree with Appellants that the Examiner’s findings do
not show that Zolnowsky teaches or suggests “wherein the disconnect
envelope detector determines that the voltage swing in a set of wires
between the second communication port and the peripheral device port
exceeds a voltage threshold,” as recited in claim 11, the disputed limitation
is taught or suggested by USB 2.0.
Specifically, USB 2.0 teaches that “Disconnection Envelop Detector
output goes high when the downstream facing transceiver transmits and
positive reflections from the open line return with a phase which is additive
with the transceiver driver signal.” USB 2.0 151. “Signals with differential
amplitudes > 625 mV must reliably activate the Disconnection Envelope
Detector.” Id. Thus, USB 2.0 teaches wherein the disconnect envelop
detector (identically named in USB 2.0) determines that the voltage swing
(i.e., the differential amplitude) in a set of wires between the second
communication port (i.e., the downstream facing transceiver) and the
peripheral device port (i.e., the open line return) exceeds a voltage threshold
(is greater or equal to 625 mv).
As discussed above, Appellants do not show error in the Examiner’s
findings and conclusions with respect to independent claims 7 and 14. We
therefore adopt these findings and conclusions as our own. Based on these
8
Appeal 2017-003954
Application 13/688,887
adopted findings and conclusions, as augmented by our own findings
detailed above, we newly reject claim 11 (which depends from claim 7), and
claim 18 which contains the same recitation (and depends from claim 14),
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Zolnowsky, Warren,
and USB 2.0.
DECISION
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1, 2, 6—7, and 14 is
affirmed.
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 4, 9—13, and 16—20 is
reversed.
We newly reject claims 4, 9, and 16 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b).
We newly reject claims 11 and 18 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
This Decision contains a new ground of rejection pursuant to
37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b). Section 41.50(b) provides “[a] new ground of
rejection pursuant to this paragraph shall not be considered final for judicial
review.” Section 41.50(b) also provides:
When the Board enters such a non-final decision, the appellant,
within two months from the date of the decision, must exercise
one of the following two options with respect to the new ground
of rejection to avoid termination of the appeal as to the rejected
claims:
(1) Reopen prosecution. Submit an appropriate
amendment of the claims so rejected or new Evidence relating
to the claims so rejected, or both, and have the matter
reconsidered by the examiner, in which event the prosecution
will be remanded to the examiner. The new ground of rejection
is binding upon the examiner unless an amendment or new
Evidence not previously of Record is made which, in the
9
Appeal 2017-003954
Application 13/688,887
opinion of the examiner, overcomes the new ground of rejection
designated in the decision. Should the examiner reject the
claims, appellant may again appeal to the Board pursuant to this
subpart.
(2) Request rehearing. Request that the proceeding be reheard
under §41.52 by the Board upon the same Record. The request
for rehearing must address any new ground of rejection and
state with particularity the points believed to have been
misapprehended or overlooked in entering the new ground of
rejection and also state all other grounds upon which rehearing
is sought.
Further guidance on responding to a new ground of rejection can be
found in the Manual of Patent Examining Procedure § 1214.01 (9th Ed.,
Rev. 07.2015, Nov. 2015).
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.50(f).
AFFIRMED-IN-PART; 37 C.F.R, § 41.50(b)
10