Ex Parte Dalakuras et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Sep 28, 2010

10898302 (B.P.A.I. Sep. 28, 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.
10/898,302 07/23/2004 Lambros Dalakuras 10191/3908 3818
26646 7590 09/28/2010
KENYON & KENYON LLP
ONE BROADWAY
NEW YORK, NY 10004
EXAMINER
REHMAN, MOHAMMED H
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2116
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/28/2010 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 LAMBROS DALAKURAS and ANDREAS BOEHM
____________________

Appeal 2009-006209
Application 10/898,302
Technology Center 2100
____________________

Before ANTON W. FETTING, JOSEPH A. FISCHETTI, and
THU A. DANG, Administrative Patent Judges.

DANG, 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 2009-006209
Application 10/898,302

I. STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal from the Examiner’s final rejection of claims 1-17
under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) (2002). We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b).
We reverse.

A. INVENTION
According to Appellants, the invention relates to a method for
synchronizing a plurality of data-processing units in a network, as well as a
network in which the method may be used (Spec. 1, ll. 2-4).

B. ILLUSTRATIVE CLAIM
Claim 1 is exemplary and is reproduced below:
1. A method for synchronizing a plurality of data-
processing units, among which are a master unit and a plurality
of slave units, which each have a time signal transmitter for
providing a time signal whose value is representative for a time
that has elapsed since a zero point in time and which are
connected via a bus, the method including:

(a) transmitting on the bus a synchronizing signal that
defines an instant;

(b) storing the value of the time signal provided by the
time signal transmitter of the master unit and each slave unit at
the instant defined by the synchronizing signal;

(c) transmitting the value that the time signal of the
master unit has at the instant defined by the synchronizing
signal;

2
Appeal 2009-006209
Application 10/898,302

(d) ascertaining, in each slave unit, a time differential that
corresponds to a difference between the time signal value stored
in (b) and the time signal value transmitted in (c), and
correcting the time signal transmitter of the slave unit according
to the ascertained time differential; and

(e) sending, by the master unit to the slave units,
commands that specify an action to be triggered and the time of
the triggering and then, at the specified time, triggering by the
slave units the action in a coordinated way.

C. REJECTIONS
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Vangen US 4,337,463 Jun. 29, 1982
Jarvis US 5,918,040 Jun. 29, 1999
Pohlmeyer US 2002/0101884 A1 Aug. 1, 2002
Colombo US 6,900,673 B2 May 31, 2005

Claims 1, 5, 12, 16, and 17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
anticipated by Jarvis.
Claims 2-4 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Jarvis in view of Colombo.
Claims 6-11 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Jarvis in view of Vangen.
Claim 13 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Jarvis in view of Pohlmeyer.
3
Appeal 2009-006209
Application 10/898,302

Claim 14 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Jarvis in view of Pohlmeyer and Applicants’ Admitted Prior Art
(APA).
Claim 15 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Jarvis in view of APA.

II. ISSUE
Has the Examiner erred in finding that Jarvis teaches “storing the
value of the time signal provided by the time signal transmitter of the master
unit and each slave unit at the instant defined by the synchronizing signal”
and “sending, by the master unit to the slave units, commands that specify an
action to be triggered and the time of the triggering and then, at the specified
time, triggering by the slave units the action in a coordinated way” (claim
1)?

III. FINDINGS OF FACT
The following Findings of Fact (FF) are shown by a preponderance of
the evidence.
Jarvis
1. Jarvis discloses a synchronization operation, wherein at the outset, the
master M issues to the slave S a data packet containing a
synchronization request and its current time value M0 and awaits a
response from slave S (col. 3, ll. 60-63; Fig. 2).
2. The slave S receives the synchronization request and compares the
issued master time value M0 with its own current slave time value S0,
wherein, if the times are the same (M0=S0), then no synchronization is
4
Appeal 2009-006209
Application 10/898,302

necessary, and acknowledgement of this by the slave S to the master
M is effected by sending a data packet containing a confirm response
and the values M0, S0 (col. 4, ll. 1-5).
3. For M0=S0, the synchronization request data packet is issued by the
master indicating its clock time M0; the slave receives the packet,
compares the master time M0 with its own time S0 and thus confirms
time set in response packet; and the master M receives this response at
time M1 which confirms that the synchronization operation has
completed with a single transaction (col. 5, ll. 11-17; Fig. 3).
4. For M0 is greater than S0, master M issues request data packet at time
M0 which is received by slave S at S0, slave S sets the clock at S1 and
issues response packet to master M with this set time, and master M
receives this packet at M1 which confirms that the synchronization
operation has completed with a single transaction (col. 5, ll. 24-29).

IV. ANALYSIS
As to claim 1, Appellants argue that:
Jarvis merely discloses comparing the master time value M0
with slave time value S0, but there is no suggestion in Jarvis
regarding: a) storing local time values at both a master and a
slave at the instant defined by the same synchronization
signal; and b) additionally specifying an “action to be
triggered and the time of the triggering” by the master unit, and
then, at the specified time, triggering the specified action by
the slave units in a coordinated way.
(App. Br. 6).
The Examiner concludes that “one of ordinary skill in the art would
understand Jarvis’s teaching of comparing first timer value with second
5
Appeal 2009-006209
Application 10/898,302

timer value are from one instant otherwise a comparison is not needed if
there are from different instant and will have different time value” and thus
“Jarvis teaches storing local time values at both a master and a slave at the
instant defined by the same synchronization signal” (Ans. 10). The
Examiner further finds that “Jarvis further teaches master unit send to slave
unit commands (master M issues a ‘request data packet 74’) that specify an
action (response) to be triggered and the time of the triggering … (set time)
and then, at the specified time, triggering by the slave units the action in a
coordinated way … (slave unit response-76 to packet 74 from master unit at
specified time 20 (set time))” (id.).
After reviewing the record on appeal, we agree with the Appellants
that Jarvis fails to teach “storing the value of the time signal provided by the
time signal transmitter of the master unit and each slave unit at the instant
defined by the synchronizing signal” and additionally “sending, by the
master unit to the slave units, commands that specify an action to be
triggered and the time of the triggering and then, at the specified time,
triggering by the slave units the action in a coordinated way,” as required by
claim 1.
Jarvis discloses a synchronization operation, wherein the master
issues to the slave a data packet containing a synchronization request and its
current time value (FF 1), and the slave S receives the synchronization
request and compares the issued master time value with its own current slave
time value, wherein, if the times are the same, then no synchronization is
necessary (FF 2). Thus, Jarvis discloses comparing a current time value of a
master with a current time value of a slave to see if they are the same.
6
Appeal 2009-006209
Application 10/898,302

Though Jarvis discloses synchronizing the master and slave and we
agree with the Examiner that Jarvis discloses “comparing first timer value
with second timer value are from one instant” (Ans. 10), we cannot find any
teaching of “storing the value of the time signal provided by the time signal
transmitter of the master unit and each slave unit at the instant defined by the
synchronizing signal” as required by claim 1, in the sections referenced by
the Examiner. That is, we do not find any teaching of a synchronizing signal
in the referenced sections and thus do not find any teaching of storing the
value at the instant defined by a synchronization signal.
Furthermore, Jarvis discloses that, for the current master time value
that is equal to the current slave time value, the synchronization request data
packet is issued by the master indicating its clock time and the slave receives
the packet to compare the master time with its own time and confirm the
time set in response packet (FF 3). For the current master time that is
greater than the current slave time, the master issues a request data packet at
the current master time which is received by the slave the current slave time,
the slave sets its clock at a subsequent time and issues response packet to the
master with this set time (FF 4). Thus, Jarvis discloses the master issues a
synchronization request data packet including the current master time to the
slave, wherein the slave either confirms that the time is set the current
master time or sets a new time and sends a response packet to the master
with the new set time. That is, Jarvis discloses comparing the master time
with the slave time for synchronization.
Though we agree with the Examiner that Jarvis discloses that the
master unit sends to the slave unit commands (request data packets 74) that
specify an action such as a response (Ans. 10), such teaching is directed to
7
Appeal 2009-006209
Application 10/898,302

the synchronization of the master and slaves. However, we cannot find any
teaching of sending “commands that specify an action to be triggered and
the time of the triggering and then, at the specified time, triggering by the
slave units the action in a coordinated way” in addition to storing the value
of the time signal at the instant defined by the synchronizing signal, in the
sections referenced by the Examiner. That is, though Jarvis discloses
synchronization, there is no additional teaching of the slave units triggering
an additional action in a coordinated way.
Furthermore, contrary to the Examiner’s finding that Jarvis teaches
that the master unit sends to slave unit commands that specify an action
(response) “to be triggered and the time of the triggering … (set time)” (Ans.
10), the slave sets its clock at S1 (set time) and issues response packet to the
master with this set time S1 not at this set time S1 (FF 4). Thus, the set time
S1 is not the time of triggering the response, but rather the time included with
the response packet. Rather, the master receives the packet with this set time
S1 at M1 (id.).
As such, we will reverse the rejection of representative claim 1,
independent claim 12 standing therewith, and claims 5, 16, and 17
depending from claim 1.
Claims 2-4, 6-11 and 13-15
We also find that Jarvis, Colombo, Vangen, Pohlmeyer and APA do
not cure these deficiencies of Jarvis. As such, we will also reverse the
rejection of claims 2-4 over Jarvis in view of Colombo, the rejection of
claims 6-11 over Jarvis in view of Vangen, the rejection of claim 13 over
Jarvis in view of Pohlmeyer, the rejection of claim 14 over Jarvis in view of
8
Appeal 2009-006209
Application 10/898,302

Pohlmeyer and APA, and the rejection of claim 15 over Jarvis in view of
APA.

V. CONCLUSION
Appellants have shown that the Examiner erred in holding claims 1-17
unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).

VI. DECISION
We have not sustained the Examiner's rejection with respect to any
claim on appeal. Therefore, the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-17 is
reversed.

REVERSED

peb

KENYON & KENYON LLP
ONE BROADWAY
NEW YORK, NY 10004

9