10722499 (B.P.A.I. Aug. 19, 2010)

Ex Parte Cuylen

Board of Patent Appeals and InterferencesAug 19, 2010

10722499 (B.P.A.I. Aug. 19, 2010)

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. 10/722,499 11/28/2003 Michael Cuylen 2454.1095 7666 21171 7590 08/20/2010 STAAS & HALSEY LLP SUITE 700 1201 NEW YORK AVENUE, N.W. WASHINGTON, DC 20005 EXAMINER GANDHI, DIPAKKUMAR B ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2117 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 08/20/2010 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 MICHAEL CUYLEN ____________ Appeal 2009-000724 Application 10/722,499 Technology Center 2100 ____________ Before HOWARD B. BLANKENSHIP, ST. JOHN COURTENAY III, and STEPHEN C. SIU, Administrative Patent Judges. BLANKENSHIP, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL1 1 The two-month time period for filing an appeal or commencing a civil action, as recited in 37 C.F.R. § 1.304, or for filing a request for rehearing, as recited in 37 C.F.R. § 41.52, begins to run from the “MAIL DATE” (paper delivery mode) or the “NOTIFICATION DATE” (electronic delivery mode) shown on the PTOL-90A cover letter attached to this decision. Appeal 2009-000724 Application 10/722,499 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s final rejection of claims 1-19, which are all the claims in the application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. Representative Claim 1. A method for protected transmission of data whose coding is represented by a first transmitted sequence having a predetermined number of on and off values, comprising: forming a count, from the first transmitted sequence, the count representing the predetermined number, by changing a counting direction after each on-value and by incrementing or decrementing the count for each off-value; and generating error information when a first final value of the count, which, together with the data, is transmitted as a second coded sequence of the count, differs from a second final value, which is also formed from the first transmitted sequence. Prior Art Thompson US 3,699,479 Oct. 17, 1972 Sato US 4,087,627 May 2, 1978 Boros US 4,095,165 Jun. 13, 1978 Roche US 4,138,596 Feb. 6, 1979 Fairbairn US 4,181,850 Jan. 1, 1980 Gomm US 5,650,761 Jul. 22, 1997 Eckstein US 2001/0040507 A1 Nov. 15, 2001 Sainomoto US 2001/0054109 A1 Dec. 20, 2001 Kuttruff US 2002/0080864 A1 Jun. 27, 2002 Masao JP 59045738 Mar. 14, 1984 Appeal 2009-000724 Application 10/722,499 3 Examiner’s Rejections I. Claim 1 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Masao and Thompson. II. Claims 2 and 3 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Masao, Thompson, and Roche. III. Claim 4 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Masao, Thompson, Roche, and Sainomoto. IV. Claims 5 and 6 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Masao, Thompson, and Boros. V. Claim 7 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Masao, Thompson, and Fairbairn. VI. Claims 8-10 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Masao, Thompson, and Sato. VII. Claims 11-15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Masao, Thompson, and Gomm. VIII. Claims 16-19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Masao, Thompson, Gomm, Kuttruff, and Eckstein. FINDINGS OF FACT We refer to, and rely on, the Examiner’s findings concerning Masao in the Final Rejection and the Answer. Appeal 2009-000724 Application 10/722,499 4 PRINCIPLES OF LAW What a reference teaches is a question of fact. In re Baird, 16 F.3d 380, 382 (Fed. Cir. 1994); In re Beattie, 974 F.2d 1309, 1311 (Fed. Cir. 1992). ANALYSIS The Examiner finds that Masao teaches all the subject matter of claim 1 except for the particular way of “forming a count.” The Examiner turns to Thompson for teaching a way of counting within the ambit of the claim, concluding that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious. Appellant does not allege improper hindsight in the proposed combination. Nor does Appellant contest the Examiner’s findings with respect to Thompson. However, Appellant submits that the Examiner errs in the findings that are based on Masao. Appellant argues in the Appeal Brief that Masao does not teach or suggest the claimed “second final value” because the corresponding “value” in Masao is formed from the received (RD) signal rather than the transmitted (SD) signal. However, Appellant appears to drop that argument in the Reply Brief. In any event, Appellant argues in both briefs that there is no teaching or suggestion that the UDCNT value of transmission signal SD is compared with the value of the UDCNT of the received data RD. In our view, Masao provides ample support for the Examiner’s findings, in particular as set out at pages 12 and 13 of the Answer. Figure 1 (depicting circuitry) and the Abstract of Masao teach that a “first final value” is computed from an up-down counter UDCNT on the transmission Appeal 2009-000724 Application 10/722,499 5 side from the transmission signal SD. At the reception side, the received data signal RD is counted by a corresponding UDCNT (for the “second final value”), which is compared with the count value from the transmission side UDCNT. The received data signal is identical to the transmitted data signal when no errors are introduced in the transmission channel. The “second final value” is thus, consistent with instant claim 1, “formed from the first transmitted sequence,” for all that the claim requires. The “second final value” is formed from the “first transmitted sequence,” even though the “first transmitted sequence” when received may contain bit errors. As shown in the circuit of Masao Figure 1, an error (“ERR”) signal is generated when there is a mismatch between the transmitted count value (first final value) and the count value computed at the reception side (second final value). We note that Appellant and the Examiner had only the English language Abstract and the Figures (1 and 2) at the time of rejection and response. However, subsequent to entry of the Reply Brief, the Board required that the Examiner provide a complete English translation of the reference if the rejection was to be maintained. The file now contains an English translation of Masao, which was provided to Appellant by the Examiner before docketing of the appeal. The Masao English translation, in particular Section (e), confirms the Examiner’s interpretation of the Abstract and drawings. On the receiving side, receiving data (RD) are input to SFT2 [serial to parallel converting shift register], shifted at a rise timing of the ST [transmission clock], and received as parallel data. The RD is also input to UDCNT [up-down counter] on the receiving side. The UDCNT operates as totally Appeal 2009-000724 Application 10/722,499 6 similarly to as on the transmitting side. After this, upon completing of the receiving the outputs from CK0 to CKm, the ST from the transmitting side stops. Thereby, outputs from the last bit of SFT2 to +(m+l) bit are held as check bits. By comparing the check bits held in SFT2 with the output of UDCNT using CMP [comparator circuit], bit errors on a data transfer passage are detected. When the check bits do not match with the output of UDCNT, an error signal is output. Masao English translation, p. 4, ll. 10-17. The check bits that are generated from a first counting process and transmitted with the data signal are thus compared with the count value generated on the receiving side, the count value on the receiving side generated from the transmitted data signal.2 Appellant elected to rely on the limitations of claim 1 in the response to the § 103(a) rejections on appeal. We therefore decide the appeal on the basis of claim 1 alone. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii). For the foregoing reasons we sustain the § 103(a) rejection of claim 1, and each rejection of the remaining claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). DECISION Because Appellant has not demonstrated that any claim on appeal has been rejected in error, we affirm the Examiner’s rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). 2 We need not reach the question whether it “would have been obvious” to compare the transmitted set information CK0 to CKm with the count value at the receiving side at the comparator circuit CMP. See Ans. 14; Reply Br. 5. Masao describes that operation. No modification is necessary. Appeal 2009-000724 Application 10/722,499 7 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 msc STAAS & HALSEY LLP SUITE 700 1201 NEW YORK AVENUE, N.W. WASHINGTON DC 20005