Ex Parte Chen et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 22, 2017

13720531 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 22, 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.
13/720,531 12/19/2012 Huimin Chen P50756 1016
104333 7590 06/26/2017
International IP Law Group, P.L.L.C.
13231 Champion Forest Drive
Suite 410
Houston, TX 77069
EXAMINER
CLEARY, THOMAS J
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2185
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/26/2017 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):
eoffrceaction @ 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 HUIMIN CHEN, KOK HONG CHAN, KIAN LEONG PHANG
and KARTHI VADIVELU
Appeal 2017-004535
Application 13/720,5311
Technology Center 2100
Before JEFFREY S. SMITH, JOHNNY A. KUMAR, and
TERRENCE W. McMILLIN, Administrative Patent Judges.
McMILLIN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the final
rejection of claims 1, 2, 4—10, 12—17, and 19—23. Final Act. 1. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.
1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Intel Corporation
(App. Br. 2).
Appeal 2017-004535
Application 13/720,531
REJECTIONS ON APPEAL
Claims 1, 2, 4—10, 12—15, and 21—23 stand rejected under pre-AIA 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Zhang (US 8,255,708 Bl,
published Aug. 28, 2012), Zhu (US 2006/0076977 Al, published Apr. 13,
2006), LeCroy (“USB 3.0: Delivering SuperSpeed with 25% Lower Power,”
SuperSpeed USB Power Management, LeCroy Corporation, published
2010), and Dove (US 2013/0054995 Al, published Feb. 28, 2013). Final
Act. 3.
Claims 16, 17, 19, and 20 stand rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Zhang, Zhu, and LeCroy. Final Act. 11.
THE CLAIMED INVENTION
The present invention generally relates to “techniques for reducing
idle power consumption during low power link states of a communication
interface.” Spec. 1 8. Independent claim 1 is directed to an electronic
device; independent claim 9 is directed to a USB port; and independent
claim 16 is directed to a computing device. App. Br. 20, 22, 23.
Claim 1 recites:
1. An electronic device, comprising:
a downstream port comprising a physical layer to send
and receive data to an upstream device via a link, the physical
layer comprising:
a pull-down resistor to determine presence of the
upstream device; and
a switch coupled to the pull-down resistor, the
switch to disable the pull-down resistor in response to the
downstream port initiating a low power state of the link
between the downstream port and the upstream device,
2
Appeal 2017-004535
Application 13/720,531
wherein the switch is controlled by input from a link
layer of the downstream port; and
wherein the physical layer comprises a timer to
perform periodic monitoring of the presence of the
upstream device, the link layer of the downstream port to
start the timer upon entering the low power state and, at
the expiration of the timer, enable the pull-down resistor
for a predetermined amount of time to determine whether
the upstream device has been disconnected, wherein if
the upstream device is detected as present, the
downstream port is to disable the pull-down resistor and
restart the timer.
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed Appellants’ arguments in the Briefs, the
Examiner’s rejection, and the Examiner’s response to Appellants’
arguments. Appellants’ arguments have persuaded us of error in the
Examiner’s rejection of independent claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
The dispositive issue presented by Appellants’ arguments is whether
the Examiner erred in finding the combination of Zhang, Zhu, and LeCroy
teaches or suggests “the physical layer comprises a timer to perform periodic
monitoring of the presence of the upstream device” and “at the expiration of
the timer, enable the pull-down resistor for a predetermined amount of time
to determine whether the upstream device has been disconnected, wherein if
the upstream device is detected as present, the downstream port is to disable
the pull-down resistor and restart the timer,” as recited in claim 1, and
similarly recited in independent claims 9 and 16. App. Br. 9—13; Reply Br.
2-A.
In particular, Appellants contend the combination does not teach “any
periodic monitoring or restarting of the timer if a device is present.” App.
3
Appeal 2017-004535
Application 13/720,531
Br. 10. Appellants also contend “performing periodic monitoring” as
claimed “is not the same as determining the presence of an upstream device
upon resuming from a low power state, regardless of whether a timer is used
to determine when to resume from the low power state,” and rather “implies
a repeated resume from the low power state occurring at some interval.”
App. Br. 12; Reply Br. 3.
In response to Appellants’ arguments, the Examiner finds that
“[b]ecause... the pull-down resistor of Zhang is necessary to determine if the
upstream device is still present after resuming from the low power state, the
combination... must necessarily enable the pull-down resistor to determine
whether the upstream device has been disconnected after resuming from the
low power state,” and “[b]ecause the combination of Zhang, Zhu, and
LeCroy determines the presence of the upstream device upon resuming from
the low power state,... the timer in the combination performs periodic
monitoring of the presence of the upstream device.” Final Act. 5; Ans. 15.
We disagree with the Examiner’s finding because Zhang’s device
exiting the power saving mode, even at a predetermined time requested by
the device, and returning to an active mode for a brief waking period,
combined with Zhu’s disabling of the pull-down resistor, does not teach the
claimed “to start the timer upon entering the low power state and, at the
expiration of the timer, enable the pull-down resistor for a predetermined
amount of time to determine whether the upstream device has been
disconnected, wherein if the upstream device is detected as present, the
downstream port is to disable the pull-down resistor and restart the timer.'1'’
See Zhang col. 7,11. 11-21; Zhu H 87-88.
4
Appeal 2017-004535
Application 13/720,531
The Examiner has not made a finding that the additional references
provide teachings that make up for the deficiency in the rejection of claim 1,
and thus, we are constrained by the record before us to reverse the
Examiner’s rejection of independent claims 1, 9, and 16, and dependent
claims 2, 4—8, 10, 12—15, 17, and 19—23.
DECISION
The rejection of claims 1, 2, 4—10, 12—17, and 19—23 is reversed.
REVERSED
5