Ex Parte Cheung

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Apr 29, 2011

10650403 (B.P.A.I. Apr. 29, 2011)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte HUGO CHEUNG
____________

Appeal 2009-010450
Application 10/650,403
Technology Center 2100
____________

Before JOSEPH L. DIXON, LANCE LEONARD BARRY, and
JOHN A. JEFFERY, Administrative Patent Judges.

JEFFERY, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 15-17, 19, and 20.1 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b). We affirm.

1 Although Appellant indicates that claim 18 is withdrawn from
consideration (Br. 2), the Examiner cancelled that claim. Ans. 2.
Appeal 2009-010450
Application 10/650,403

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant’s invention employs a buffering scheme for a serial
peripheral interface that facilitates high data transmission rates between
microprocessors, components, and other devices. See generally Spec. 1, 5-6.
Claim 15 is illustrative with key disputed limitations emphasized:
15. A high performance buffering technique for use with a serial
peripheral interface to facilitate high data rates, said buffering technique
comprising the steps of
initializing a single buffer to act as transmitter and receiver by writing
data to a data register;
performing a transmit buffering sequence to prepare for the
transmitting of the data;
performing a transmit and receive shifting sequence to facilitate
transmitting of the data and receiving of new data at substantially the same
time; and
performing a receive buffering sequence to prepare for the receipt of
additional new data.

The Examiner relies on the following as evidence of unpatentability:
Thomsen US 5,278,956 Jan. 11, 1994
Yasoshima US 2002/0078317 A1 June 20, 2002
(filed Dec. 19, 2000)

THE REJECTION
The Examiner rejected claims 15-17, 19, and 20 under 35 U.S.C. §
103(a) as unpatentable over Thomsen and Yasoshima. Ans. 3-6.2

2 Throughout this opinion, we refer to the Appeal Brief filed December 21,
2007 and the Examiner’s Answer mailed March 13, 2009.
Appeal 2009-010450
Application 10/650,403

3
CONTENTIONS
Regarding representative claim 15, the Examiner finds that Thomsen
discloses a buffering technique usable with a serial peripheral interface with
every recited feature except for arranging the disclosed transmitter and
receiver FIFO buffers in a single buffer, but cites Yasoshima for teaching
arranging multiple FIFOs within a single buffer in concluding that the claim
would have been obvious. Ans. 3-10.
Appellant argues that Yasoshima does not disclose a single buffer to
facilitate transmitting and receiving substantially simultaneously, nor do the
references teach how they can be combined to obtain a single buffer to
perform a transmit and receive shifting sequence to facilitate transmitting
data and receiving new data as claimed. Br. 5. The issues before us, then,
are as follows:

ISSUES
1. Under § 103, has the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 15 by
finding that Thomsen and Yasoshima collectively would have taught or
suggested (1) initializing a single buffer to act as a transmitter and receiver
by writing data to a data register, and (2) performing a transmit and receive
shifting sequence to facilitate transmitting data and receiving new data
substantially simultaneously?
2. Is the Examiner’s reason to combine the teachings of these
references supported by articulated reasoning with some rational
underpinning to justify the Examiner’s obviousness conclusion?

Appeal 2009-010450
Application 10/650,403

4
FINDINGS OF FACT (FF)
We adopt the Examiner’s findings regarding Thomsen and Yasoshima
as our own. Ans. 3-10.

ANALYSIS
Based on the record before us, we find no error in the Examiner’s
obviousness rejection of representative claim 15. We find the Examiner’s
thorough and cogent reasoning articulated in the Answer (Ans. 6-10)
persuasive and adopt it as our own.
Appellant has not persuaded us of error in the Examiner’s position
that Thomsen’s transmitter and receiver FIFO buffers and associated shift
register functionality would at least allow transmitting data to the transmitter
shift register substantially simultaneously with receiving new data at the
receiver shift register. Ans. 7-8. Leaving aside the fact that this capability
need only facilitate substantially simultaneous data transmission and
reception (which is not necessarily simultaneous) as the Examiner indicates
(Ans. 9-10), we further note that this limitation merely recites a desired
result or capability of the recited shifting sequence, namely to facilitate the
recited data transmission and reception. In any event, the Examiner’s
analysis regarding Thomsen’s teaching this functionality (Ans. 6-10) is
persuasive.
Nor are we persuaded of error in the Examiner’s reliance on
Yasoshima for teaching integrating Thomsen’s multiple FIFOs in a single
FIFO (Ans. 7-10), for such an enhancement is nothing more than predictably
using prior art elements according to their established functions—an obvious
improvement. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 417 (2007). Nor
Appeal 2009-010450
Application 10/650,403

5
has Appellant shown that such an enhancement would have been beyond the
level of ordinarily skilled artisans. We therefore find the Examiner’s reason
to combine the teachings of these references supported by articulated
reasoning with some rational underpinning to justify the Examiner’s
obviousness conclusion.
We are therefore not persuaded that the Examiner erred in rejecting
representative claim 15 and claims 16, 17, 19, and 20 not separately argued
with particularity.

CONCLUSION
The Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 15-17, 19, and 20 under
§ 103.

ORDER
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 15-17, 19, 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

peb