Ex Parte Cho et al

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Apr 29, 2016

12165468 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Apr. 29, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
12/165,468 06/30/2008 In Sung Cho
120363 7590 05/03/2016
Lattice Semiconductor/FENWICK
801 California Street
Mountain View, CA 94041
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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
30850-25688 1952
EXAMINER
CATTUNGAL, AJAY P
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2467
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/03/2016 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):
ptoc@fenwick.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte IN SUNG CHO, KUMAR MARESH, PRAKASH KAMATH,
JEFFREY GILBERT, and ROB FRIZZELL
Appeal2014-008392
Application 12/165,468
Technology Center 2400
Before JOHN A. EV ANS, LINZY T. McCARTNEY, and JOYCE CRAIG,
Administrative Patent Judges.
EV ANS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants 1 seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the
Examiner's final rejection of Claims 1-22. App. Br. 3. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We REVERSE.2
1 The Brief identifies SiBeam, Inc., as the real party in interest. App. Br. 3.
2 Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellants and the Examiner, we
refer to the Appeal Brief (filed January 28, 2014, "App. Br."), the
Appeal2014-008392
Application 12/165,468
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The claims relate to methods and apparatus to identify devices using a
bitmap. See Abstract.
Claims 1 and 12 are independent. An understanding of the invention
can be derived from a reading of exemplary Claim 1, which is reproduced
below with some formatting added:
1. A method comprising:
a host processor receiving an interrupt from a transceiver via a
physical interface coupling the host processor and the transceiver
indicating that a remote wireless media device has been detected;
accessing a memory in response to the interrupt to obtain one or
more bitmaps that map each bit location in the bitmap to an
index value, wherein one index value is assigned to each remote
wireless media device of a wireless network in a wireless
communication system; and
exammmg the one or more bitmaps and determmmg at least one
characteristic of the remote wireless media device and a device
identifier that identifies the remote wireless media device in the
wireless network based on bit position in the one or more
bitmaps.
Examiner's Answer (mailed May 22, 2014, "Ans."), the Final Action
(mailed October 1, 2013, "Final Act."), and the Specification (filed June 30,
2008, "Spec.") for their respective details.
2
Appeal2014-008392
Application 12/165,468
References and Rejections
The Examiner relies upon the prior art as follows:
Lobbert US 2005/0021725 Al Jan.27,2005
Harrison US 2005/0256970 Al Nov. 17, 2005
Smith US 2005/ 0259646 Al Nov. 24, 2005
Suga ya US 2006/0252440 Al Nov. 9, 2006
Singh US 2008/0130617 Al June 5, 2008
Sullivan US 2008/0146343 Al June 19, 2008
Wang US 2009/0154412 Al June 18, 2009
The claims stand rejected as follows:
1. Claims 1-3 and 7 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious
over Wang and Lobbert. Final Act. 3-5.
2. Claims 4 and 5 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious
over Wang, Lobbert, and Sugaya. Final Act. 5---6.
3. Claim 6 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over
Wang, Lobbert, Suga ya, and Harrison. Final Act. 6-7.
4. Claims 8-10 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over
Wang, Lobbert, and Singh. Final Act. 7-8.
5. Claim 11 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over
Wang, Lobbert, and Smith. Final Act. 9.
6. Claims 12-14, and 18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
obvious over Wang, Lobbert, and Sullivan. Final Act. 9-12.
3
Appeal2014-008392
Application 12/165,468
7. Claims 15 and 16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious
over Wang, Lobbert, Sullivan, and Sugaya. Final Act. 12-13.
8. Claim 17 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over
Wang, Lobbert, Sullivan, Sugaya, and Harrison. Final Act. 13-14.
9. Claims 19-21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over
Wang, Lobbert, Sullivan, and Singh. Final Act. 14--16.
IO.Claims 11 and 22 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious
over Wang, Lobbert, Sullivan, and Smith. Final Act. 16-17.
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the rejections of Claims 1-22 in light of
Appellants' arguments that the Examiner has erred. We agree with
Appellants' conclusions.
We consider Appellants' arguments seriatim, as they are presented in
the Brief.
CLAIMS 1-3 AND 7: OBVIOUSNESS OVER WANG AND LOBBERT
Appellants contend neither Lobbert nor Wang teach "a host processor
receiving an interrupt from a transceiver via a physical interface coupling the
host processor and the transceiver," as recited in independent Claim 1. Br.
8, 10, 11.
The Examiner finds an interrupt is just a message, passing information
that a device has been detected. Final Act. 2. The Examiner finds a
message is sent to a server, to access device configuration information, upon
detecting a wireless device in the network. Where the device is not detected,
the second step of sending the message to the server is not performed. Thus,
4
Appeal2014-008392
Application 12/165,468
the Examiner finds the claimed limitation is met, as there is a trigger or
interrupt when a wireless device is detected. Id.
Appellants contend the cited art fails to teach a host ''processor
receiving an interrupt from a transceiver via a physical interface." App. Br.
11.
The Examiner re-iterates the finding that an "interrupt" is a message
or indication to a processor to stop doing, i.e., interrupt whatever the
processor formerly was processing and to start processing a new set of
instructions. Ans. 2. The Examiner finds Lobbert discloses interrupt
processing. Final Act. 2; Ans. 2.
Appellants' argument highlights in bold and underline the claimed
phrase "via a physical interface." App. Br. 11; Reply Br. 4 (citing Spec., ,-r
290, Fig 76A). The Examiner does not respond to the "physical interface"
aspect of Appellants' argument. See Final Act. 2; Ans. 2.
Appellants disclose their
wireless communication system includes an apparatus to
communicate with remote wireless devices (e.g., WirelessHD
devices) in the wireless network, where the apparatus
comprises: a host processor having an I2C interface; a
transceiver having an I2C interface; and a physical interface
coupling the host processor and the transceiver that includes an
I2C bus coupled to the I2C interfaces of both the host processor
and the transceiver.
Spec., i-f 166 (emphasis added); see also Spec., i-f 290. Appellants define the
"I2C Protocol, Inter-Integrated Circuit Protocol, [as] a multi-master serial
bus used to enable low-speed communications between processors or
5
Appeal2014-008392
Application 12/165,468
computers." Spec., i-f 160. Appellants further disclose the "Hardware
Abstraction Layer (HAL) 205 is the physical driver of the interface" and
"uses the standard 8-bit addressing mode described in '"The I2C-Bus
Specification v.2.1, January 2000 (9398-393-40011)' 3 with the transceiver
being the slave device and the host being the master." Spec. i-f 162.
The Examiner has not found the cited art teaches a "physical
interface" that is consistent with the Specification disclosure. Although we
must construe the claims in light of the Specification, we recognize,
however, that limitations may not be imported into the claims from the
Specification. See SuperGuide Corp. v. DirecTV Enters., Inc., 358 F.3d 870,
875 (Fed. Cir. 2004). During examination, claim terms are to be given their
broadest reasonable interpretation as they would have been understood by
one of ordinary skill in the art, taking into account whatever enlightenment
may be provided by the Specification. In re Ji;forris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054
(Fed. Cir. 1997).
We agree the claims do not recite, nor does the broadest reasonable
interpretation of the claims require, a specific "physical interface," such as
the disclosed I2C-Bus. However, the Specification discloses the "physical
interface" comprises an I2C-Bus coupled to the I2C-interfaces of the host
processor and the transceiver. Spec., i-f 166. For purposes of§ 103, the
broadest reasonable interpretation of, the claimed "physical interface" need
not be limited to an I2C-Bus. Lobbert discloses that a Bluetooth data-link-
3 Available at: http://www.cs.unc.edu/Research/stc/FAQs/Interfaces/I2C-
BusSnec-V2. Lpdf, (accessed March 24, 2016).
6
Appeal2014-008392
Application 12/165,468
layer protocol is used by "one peer which acts as a client and one peer acting
as a file and/ or application server [to] establish a direct radio link." Lobbert,
if 006 (emphasis added). A bus is the "circuitry and wiring connecting the
various components of a computer through which data are
transmitted." McGraw-Hill Dictionary of Electrical & Computer
Engineering, 66 (2003). Alternatively, a "bus" is defined as "[a] set of
hardware lines (conductors) used for data transfer among the components of
a computer system." Microsoft Computer Dictionary, 5th Ed., 77
(2002). Where the claims recite a "physical interface," and in the absence of
an explicit finding by the Examiner that modifying the teachings of Lobbert
to use a physical interface would have been obvious, we do not find that a
wireless, radio link reasonably teaches or suggests the wires and conductors
that define a data bus.
We agree with Appellants that the Examiner has not found the cited
art teaches "a host processor receiving an interrupt from a transceiver via a
physical interface coupling the host processor and the transceiver," as
claimed. Thus, a prima facie case of obviousness has not been established.
If the examiner fails to establish a prima facie case, the rejection is improper
and will be overturned. In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 1074 (Fed. Cir. 1988).
We accordingly decline to sustain the rejection of Claims 1-3 and 7.
CLAIMS 12-14, AND 18: OBVIOUSNESS OVER
WANG, LOBBERT, AND SULLIVAN
Appellants contend that Sullivan also fails to teach the "physical
interface" limitation missing from Wang and Lobbert. App. Br. 14. The
7
Appeal2014-008392
Application 12/165,468
Examiner finds the arguments directed to Claim 1 apply to Claim 12. The
Examiner does not answer Appellants' traversal of the remaining claims.
Ans. 3. In view of our prior discussion, we decline to sustain the rejection of
Claims 12-14 and 18.
CLAIMS 4---6, 8-11, 15-17, AND 19-22
Appellants do not separately argue the patentability contending they
stand or fall with the independent claim from which they depend. App. Br.
7. Examiner does not answer Appellants' traversal of the remaining claims.
Ans. 3. In view of our prior discussion, we decline to sustain the rejection of
Claims 4---6, 8-11, 15-17, and 19-22.
DECISION
The rejection of Claims 1-22 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is REVERSED.
REVERSED
8