Ex Parte Elliott

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 13, 2016

13563036 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 13, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
13/563,036 07 /31/2012 Robert C. Elliott
56436 7590 09/15/2016
Hewlett Packard Enterprise
3404 E. Harmony Road
Mail Stop 79
Fort Collins, CO 80528
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.
83038758 1132
EXAMINER
KOETH, MICHELLE M
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2632
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/15/2016 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):
hpe.ip.mail@hpe.com
mkraft@hpe.com
chris.mania@hpe.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte ROBERT C. ELLIOTT
Appeal2015-004109
Application 13/563,036 1
Technology Center 2600
Before TERRENCE W. McMILLIN, NATHAN A. ENGELS, and
CARLL. SILVERMAN, Administrative Patent Judges.
SILVERMAN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
Final Rejection of claims 1, 3-10, 12, and 14--18. Claims 2, 11, and 13 are
cancelled. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We AFFIRM.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant's invention is related to computer based high speed
communications wherein transmitters and receivers do not operate at the
same frequency. Abstract; Spec. i-fi-1 1, 9, 13.
1 The real party in interest is identified as Hewlett-Packard Development
Company, LP. App. Br. 3.
Appeal2015-004109
Application 13/563,036
Claim 1, reproduced below, is exemplary of the subject matter on
appeal:
1. A system comprising:
a circuit that controls a spread spectrum clocking (SSC) for a
data communication between a transmitter and a receiver;
a detection component that detects a rate of transmission by the
transmitter; and
a rate adjustment component that varies a rate of deletable characters
inserted by the transmitter and discarded by the receiver during the data
communication, wherein the rate adjusting component varies the rate of
deletable characters inserted based on the detected rate of transmission
(emphasis added).
App. Br. 12 (Claims Appendix).
REJECTIONS
The following rejections are before us for review:
Claims 1, 4--8, 10, 12, 14, and 15 stand rejected under pre-AIA 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Ogasawara et al. (US
2010/0027586 i\.l, published Feb. 4, 2010) ("Ogasav,rara") in viev,r of Lai et
al. (US 2010/0315135 Al, published Dec. 16, 2010 ("Lai") and DeCusatis et
al. (US 2006/0171317 Al, published Aug. 3, 2006) ("DeCusatis"). Final
Act. 3 -9.
Claims 9 and 17 stand rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Richmond (US 2002/0041650 Al, published Apr.
11, 2002) ("Richmond") in view of Zarrieff et al. (US 2005/0028020 Al,
published Feb. 3, 2005) ("Zarrieff') and further in view of DeCusatis. Final
Act. 9-13.
Claim 3 stands rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Ogasawara in view of Lai, DeCusatis, and Ku et al. (US
2
Appeal2015-004109
Application 13/563,036
2007/0237216 Al, published Oct. 11, 2007) ("Ku"). Final Act. 13. Claims
16 and 18 stand rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Ogasawara, Lai, DeCusatis, and Richmond. Final Act.
13-15.
ANALYSIS
The Examiner and Appellant disagree whether the cited references,
particularly DeCusatis, teach the claim 1 limitations:
a detection component that detects a rate of transmission by the
transmitter; and
a rate adjustment component that varies a rate of deletable
characters inserted by the transmitter and discarded by the receiver
during the data communication, wherein the rate adjusting component
varies the rate of deletable characters inserted based on the detected
rate of transmission.
App. Br. 6-8; Ans. 3-9; Reply Br. 2-5.
Appellant argues DeCusatis fails to disclose "detecting a rate of
transmission or varying the rate of deletable characters inserted based on
the detected rate of transmission" because DeCusatis, in contrast, detects an
over-running condition or an under-running condition and "does not detect
the actual rate of transmission." App. Br. 7. According to Appellant,
DeCusatis discloses detecting an over-running condition when a number of
ISC words stored in the GFP data mapping device is greater than a first
predetermined value and detecting an under-running condition when a
number of ISC words stored in the GFP data mapping device is less than or
equal to a second predetermined value that is less than the first
predetermined value. Id. (citing i-f 21 ).
3
Appeal2015-004109
Application 13/563,036
Appellant additionally argues the plain meaning of "transmission rate"
is a numeric value, such as number of bits per second. Reply Br. 2-3 (citing
Spec. i-f 13). According to Appellant, DeCusatis does "not know either the
transmission rate of ISC words received from the computer 12 by the device
14 or the transmission rate of the ISC words from the device 14" because
DeCusatis merely detects one transmission rate is greater/lesser "without any
knowledge of the actual transmission rates." Id. Appellant further argues
DeCusatis does not describe that the words removed or the words added are
only examples. Id. at 4.
The Examiner finds DeCusatis "teaches that in order to arrive at the
detection of an over or under-running state, the transmission rate of the
device 14, where device 14 includes a transmitter, is compared" and "[i]n
order to make this comparison, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of
invention would recognize that the transmission rate is determined by the
GFP data mapping device." Ans. 5. The Examiner further finds "the
over/under running condition disclosed in DeCusatis is also a transmission
rate as it represents, albeit in qualitative terms (over or under), how fast the
device 14 is transmitting words relative to how fast it receives them" and
"the over/under running condition represents the transmission rate of device
14 to be above or below a comparison value." Id.
Regarding the meaning of the term "rate of transmission" the
Examiner finds "Appellant has not provided in their Specification, as their
own lexicographer, a particular meaning to 'rate' to include strictly a
numeric value, or otherwise exclude a qualitative meaning of the word
'rate."' Ans. 5-6; see also Spec. i-f 32 use of qualitative rate.
The Examiner finds:
4
Appeal2015-004109
Application 13/563,036
[U]nder either interpretation set forth above, where the
transmission rate is determined as an intermediate step to
finding the over/under running condition, or where the
transmission rate is determined as the over/under running
condition itself, DeCusatis teaches the claimed "a detection
component that detects a rate of transmission by the
transmitter."
Id. at 6.
We are not persuaded by Appellant's arguments and, instead, agree
with the above findings of the Examiner. The term "transmission rate" is
not defined in the Specification, and Appellant does not provide persuasive
argument the Examiner's findings and conclusions are unreasonable or
overbroad. Claim terms in a patent application are given the broadest
reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification, as understood by
one of ordinary skill in the art. In re Crish, 393 F.3d 1253, 1256 (Fed. Cir.
2004). However, great care should be taken to avoid reading limitations of
the specification into the claims. E-Pass Techs., Inc. v. 3Com Corp., 343
F.3d 1364, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2003).
Appellant asserts an unreasonably narrow interpretation of the
teachings of DeCusatis as would be understood by one of ordinary skill in
the art. As stated by the Supreme Court, the Examiner's obviousness
rejection must be based on:
[S]ome articulated reasoning with some rational
underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness ...
. [H]owever, the analysis need not seek out precise teachings
directed to the specific subject matter of the challenged claim,
for a court can take account of the inferences and creative steps
that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ.
5
Appeal2015-004109
Application 13/563,036
KSR Int? Co. v. T'elejlex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007) (quoting In re Kahn,
441F.3d977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006)).
The Examiner's findings are reasonable because the skilled artisan
would "be able to fit the teachings of multiple patents together like pieces of
a puzzle" since the skilled artisan is "a person of ordinary creativity, not an
automaton." KSR, 550 U.S. at 420-21.
Regarding the limitation "wherein the rate adjusting component varies
the rate of deletable characters inserted based on the detected rate of
Transmission," Appellant argues DeCusatis does not vary the rate of
deletable characters inserted based on the detected rate of transmission, but,
instead DeCusatis removes a constant number of words or inserts a constant
number of words based on an over-running or under-running condition.
App. Br. 7. (citing i-fi-125-26). Appellant argues, when an over-running
condition is detected, the GFP mapping removes the fifth pair of idle words
from the input data stream and outputs the remaining ISC words, and, when
an under-running condition is detected, the GFP data mapping device adds a
data word and an idle word to the input data stream and outputs the data
stream. Id. Appellant argues "[t]herefore, DeCusatis removes two words in
an over-running condition and adds two words in an under-running
condition." Id.
The Examiner finds DeCusatis teaches "that in an under-running
condition, ISC words are added to obtain a desired transmission rate" and
"[ o ]ne of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention would understand
that adding ISC (null) words to a transmission stream increases the rate at
which the ISC words are being inserted." Ans. 7 (citing i121). The
Examiner finds:
6
Appeal2015-004109
Application 13/563,036
For example, if previously no null words were being inserted, the
"insertion rate" would be 0 words per period. Now, if null words are
being added, suddenly there is a non-zero number of words added per
period, and the insertion or null word adding rate, is increased.
Similarly, in the over-running condition, para. [0021] of DeCusatis
teaches that the ISC words/null words are removed to obtain a desired
transmission rate, therefore in the removing of ISC/null words, the
"insertion" rate is negative, as the opposite of insertion, deletion, of
words over a period of time occurs.
Moreover, DeCusatis teaches that the null words are removed or
added to obtain a desired transmission rate, thus, the words will keep
being added, for example in the under-running condition, and the rate
will increase, until the desired transmission rate is achieved. Appellant
in their Brief on p. 7 cited to paras. [0025]-[0026] of DeCusatis which
merely gives an example of the adding/removing of ISC words where
only two words are removed and added in over-running and under-
running conditions respectively. However, DeCusatis is not limited to
removing or adding a constant number of words; rather, DeCusatis
teaches in cited para. [0021] that the words are removed or added to
obtain a desired transmission rate.
Anc '7_Q
.L -'... .. LLIJe I Ve
We are not persuaded by Appellant's arguments and, instead, agree
with the above findings of the Examiner.
In view of the above, we sustain the rejection of claim 1, and
independent claim 10 which recites the disputed limitations, over
Ogasawara, Lai, and DeCusatis. Dependent claims 4--8, 12, 14, and 15 are
not argued separately and, therefore, we sustain the rejection of these claims.
Independent claim 9 is rejected over Richmond, Zarrieff, and
DeCusatis (Final Act. 9) and is directed to a computer system which recites
the disputed limitations and other limitations. Appellant relies on the same
arguments regarding DeCusatis as discussed, supra, and we sustain the
rejection of claim 9 for the same reasons. The remaining dependent claims
7
Appeal2015-004109
Application 13/563,036
3, 16, 17, and 18 are not argued separately and, therefore, we sustain the
rejection of these claims.
DECISION
For the above reasons, the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1, 3-
10, 12, and 14--18 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). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a) (1 )(iv).
AFFIRMED
8