Ex Parte Ferraiolo et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 24, 2016

12913064 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 24, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
12/913,064 10/27/2010
134131 7590 08/26/2016
SCULLY, SCOTT, MURPHY & PRESSER, P.C.
400 Garden City Plaza, Suite 300
Garden city, NY 11530
Frank D. Ferraiolo
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.
ROC920100260US1 3178
EXAMINER
HOUSHMAND, HOOMAN
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2465
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/26/2016 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):
GLOBALFOUNDRIESPAIRENotify@ssmp.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte FRANK D. FERRAIOLO, ROBERT J. REESE,
SUSAN M. RUBOW, and MICHAEL B. SPEAR
Appeal2015-004735
Application 12/913,064
Technology Center 2400
Before JOHN A. EV ANS, LINZY T. McCARTNEY, and SCOTT E. BAIN,
Administrative Patent Judges.
McCARTNEY, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a rejection of claims
1-14 and 21-25. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.
Appeal2015-004735
Application 12/913,064
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The present patent application concerns "the design and operation of
communications circuit interfaces for communicating between digital data
devices." Spec. 1:9-11. Claims 1, 8, and 21 are independent. Claim 1
illustrates the claimed subject matter:
1. A communications mechanism for communicating
between digital data devices, comprising:
a first plurality of parallel lines for communicating data in
a first direction from a first digital data device to a second digital
data device, said first plurality of parallel lines including at least
one redundant line;
a calibration mechanism for calibrating said first plurality
of parallel lines;
a switching mechanism coupled to said calibration
mechanism for selecting an individual line of said first plurality
of parallel lines for calibration by said calibration mechanism;
a control information communications mechanism which
communicates control information for said first plurality of
parallel lines on the individual line of said first plurality of
parallel lines selected for calibration by said switching
mechanism.
REJECTION
Claims 1-14 and 21-25 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
anticipated by Kizer (US 2006/0159113 Al; July 20, 2006).
ANALYSIS
Claim 1 recites in relevant part "a control information
communications mechanism which communicates control information for
said first plurality of parallel lines on the individual line of said first plurality
2
Appeal2015-004735
Application 12/913,064
of parallel lines selected for calibration by said switching mechanism." App.
Br. 19. The other pending independent claims (claims 8 and 21) recite
similar limitations. See id. at 22, 24.
Appellants contend "[t]he core issue in this appeal with respect to the
independent claims is whether Kizer discloses 'communication of control
information' on the line selected for calibration." Reply Br. 2 (emphasis
omitted). Appellants assert that Kizer discloses transmitting a calibration
test pattern on a line selected for calibration, not "control information" as
recited in the independent claims. App. Br. 10; Reply Br. 2-3. According to
Appellants, the written description "draws a clear distinction between
'control information' ... and [a] test pattern." Reply Br. 3-5 (quoting Spec.
Abstract); see App. Br. 11-12 (quoting Spec. 10:5-12, 26:12-19, 53:4--
54:15, 56:1-57:5). In light of this distinction, Appellants contend the
Examiner's construction of "control information" as encompassing Kizer's
calibration test pattern is unreasonably broad. Reply Br. 3; App. Br. 11-12.
We find Appellants' arguments persuasive. The Examiner concluded
the broadest reasonable interpretation of "control information" encompasses
Kizer' s calibration test pattern because the written description states "the
Line(i) is available for transmitting a calibration test pattern or other control
data, as described herein." Spec. 37: 11-12 (emphasis added); Ans. 2.
Although this portion of the written description arguably supports the
Examiner's conclusion, 1 for the reasons discussed below, we agree with
Appellants that the written description and originally filed claims, when
1 The portion of the written description cited by the Examiner discusses
"control data," not "control information" as recited in the independent
claims. However, Appellants have not argued that "control data" differs in
any relevant respect from the recited "control information."
3
Appeal2015-004735
Application 12/913,064
considered as a whole, distinguish calibration test data from "control
information."
Perhaps the clearest indication that the written description
distinguishes calibration test data from "control information" appears in the
"Communications Media Terminology" section of the written description.
As illustrated by the following paragraph, this section describes the
differences between "control information," "test or calibration data," and
"functional data":
As used herein, functional data means data used by the receiving
chip, or by some other system component to which it is
subsequently communicated, to perform its intended function (as
opposed to test or calibration data used to test or calibrate the
communications link itself, or control information used to
control or coordinate the communications link, and specifically
its calibration activities).
Spec. 10:6-12 (emphasis added). By contrasting "control information,"
"test or calibration data," and "functional data" in this manner, this part of
the written description indicates these data types are distinct from one
another.
Consistent with the portion of the "Communications Media
Terminology" section quoted above, the rest of the written description treats
"test or calibration data" and "control information" as distinct entities. For
example, the written description discloses "[ e Jach secondary input selector
switch selects from among a null input, a test pattern, or a control signal
known as an SLS command." Id. at 18:5-7 (emphasis added). The written
description also explains "control information for coordinating calibration
actions is carried in 'SLS commands' on a line selected for calibration along
with the test pattern data." Id. at 26: 15-16 (emphasis added). Similarly, the
4
Appeal2015-004735
Application 12/913,064
written description's abstract states "the lines selected for calibration are
time-multiplexed to carry calibration patterns and control information at
different time intervals. Id. Abstract (emphasis added). The written
description's discussion of time-multiplexing calibration patterns and control
information discloses separate calibration test patterns and control
information. See id. at 53---61 (disclosing that "control information is
transmitted on a single line by repeating an SLS command" and a "PRBS23
test pattern" is repeatedly transmitted during a calibration period); Figs.
1 lA, 1 lB, 12.
The originally filed dependent claims also indicate "control
information" differs from calibration data. Originally filed dependent claim
2 recites "wherein the individual line of said first plurality of parallel lines
selected for calibration by said switching mechanism is time multiplexed to
transmit data used to perform at least one calibration operation during a
first time interval, and to communicate said control information during a
second time interval." App. Br. 19 (emphasis added). Originally filed
dependent claim 9 (and subsequently added dependent claim 22) recites a
similar limitation. See id. at 22, 24. The use of the terms "data used to
perform at least one calibration operation" and "control information"
indicates that that "control information" differs from "data used to perform
at least one calibration operation." See Comaper Corp. v. Antee, Inc., 596
F.3d 1343, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2010) ("There is an inference ... that two
different terms used in a patent have different meanings.).
In sum, both the written description and the originally filed claims
consistently distinguish "control information" from calibration data.
Accordingly, we agree with Appellants that broadest reasonable
5
Appeal2015-004735
Application 12/913,064
interpretation of "control information" does not include calibration data such
as Kizer's calibration test patterns, despite the potion of the written
description cited by the Examiner. We therefore do not sustain the
Examiner's rejection of independent claims 1, 8, and 21 and their respective
dependent claims.
DECISION
For the above reasons, we reverse the rejection of claims 1-14 and
21-25.
REVERSED
6