Ex Parte FungDownload PDFBoard of Patent Appeals and InterferencesDec 13, 201011394815 (B.P.A.I. Dec. 13, 2010) Copy Citation 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. 11/394,815 03/31/2006 Laurie P. Fung AVA.0011US 2583 21906 7590 02/25/2011 TROP, PRUNER & HU, P.C. 1616 S. VOSS ROAD, SUITE 750 HOUSTON, TX 77057-2631 EXAMINER GILMAN, ALEXANDER ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2833 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 02/25/2011 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 LAURIE P. FUNG ____________________ Appeal 2009-013303 Application 11/394,815 Technology Center 2800 ____________________ Before MAHSHID D. SAADAT, ALLEN R. MacDONALD, and ROBERT E. NAPPI, Administrative Patent Judges. MacDONALD, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON REQUEST FOR REHEARING 1 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 2009-013303 Application 11/394,815 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Introduction This is a decision on Appellant’s Request for Rehearing. Exemplary Claim Exemplary independent claim 1 under appeal reads as follows (emphasis added): 1. An apparatus comprising: a first group of electronic modules having a first orientation, the first group of electronic modules having respective devices; a midplane board; a second group of electronic modules having respective devices and a second orientation different from the first orientation, the second group of electronic modules connected to the first group of electronic modules through the midplane board; and bridge boards electrically connected to the first and second groups of electronic modules to electrically connect devices of at least some of the first and second groups of electronic modules, wherein the bridge boards are different from the electronic modules in each of the first and second groups. In our Decision, we agreed with the Examiner that Uzuka teaches or suggests the recited bridge boards (i.e., wiring boards having connections and no electronic devices), as set forth in independent claims 1, 12, and 19. (Dec. 4). Appellant’s Contentions 1. At page 2 of the Request, Appellant contends that the Board “apparently conceded” that “Uzuka does not disclose the bridge boards Appeal 2009-013303 Application 11/394,815 3 recited in claim 1,” where the bridge boards are “different from the electronic modules.” 2. Appellant further contends that “[t]here is absolutely no teaching or hint in Uzuka of the bridge boards recited in claim 1” (Req. 2). 3. At pages 2-3 of the Request, Appellant contends that the Board erred because the facts of In re Karlson and In re Kuhle are distinguishable from the facts of the present case, and therefore these cases are inapplicable. Appellant asserts that the issue in the present case is whether Uzuka discloses or hints at the positively recited bridge boards set forth in claim 1, and not whether it would have been obvious to substitute or replace any of the printed wiring boards with bridge boards. 4. At page 3 of the Request, Appellant contends that there is no hint in Uzuka of cost savings achieved by replacing wiring boards with bridge boards. ANALYSIS First Contention We disagree with Appellant’s first contention. The Board did not concede, in the original Decision, that Uzuka does not disclose the bridge boards recited in claim 1. To the contrary, our original Decision states, “[s]pecifically, we agree that Uzuka teaches or suggests the recited bridge boards, midplane board with connectors, and broken links set forth in independent claims 1, 12, and 19” (De. 4). Appeal 2009-013303 Application 11/394,815 4 Second Contention We disagree with Appellant’s second contention, that there is no teaching or hint in Uzuka of the bridge boards recited in claim 1. As discussed with respect to Appellant’s first contention supra, our original Decision states that “we agree that Uzuka teaches or suggests the recited bridge boards, midplane board with connectors, and broken links set forth in independent claims 1, 12, and 19” (De. 4). The conclusion of the Board in the original Decision, that Uzuka teaches or suggests bridge boards that are different than the wiring boards of the electronic modules as set forth in claim 1, is based on the broadest reasonable interpretation of claim 1, consistent with the specification. “During examination, ‘claims … are to be given their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification, and … claim language should be read in light of the specification as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art.’” In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004); Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1313 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc); In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1053-54 (Fed. Cir. 1997). As noted by the Examiner, “claim 1 does not present any criterion for [the] term ‘different’” (Ans. 6). The Specification provides the following description with respect to bridge boards: To re-connect the broken links in a partially-loaded system, bridge boards (also referred to as "bridge cards") are used. A "bridge board" or "bridge card" refers to a circuit board or card that is different from the circuit boards 108 and 110. The circuit boards 108 and 110 in respective first and Appeal 2009-013303 Application 11/394,815 5 second groups 104 and 106 are considered functional circuit boards that have electronic devices to perform their intended functions (e.g., switching function, line interface function, processing function, storage function, etc.). On the other hand, a bridge board or bridge card does not include the functional electronic devices for performing the functions of the functional circuit boards 108, 110. In some embodiments, each bridge board includes signal traces (without the functional electronic devices), which signal traces are used for the purpose of re- connecting the floating connectors 116A, 118A to corresponding circuitry to remove the broken links and to enable proper functioning of the electronic devices coupled to the broken links. More generally, reference is made to a "bridge module," which includes bridge boards, bridge cards, other types of electronic modules for performing bridging, and so forth. In general, a "bridge module" refers to any module that performs electrical bridging between electronic modules provided on two opposite sides of a midplane board. (Spec. ¶¶ [0028] and [0029] (emphases added)). Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would interpret the recitation in claim 1 of bridge boards that are different from electronic modules to encompass subsets of the electronic modules that are “different” from others of the electronic modules (i.e., first and second groups of electronic modules), even in the slightest fashion (e.g., differences such as processing speed, dimensions, types of devices thereon, etc.). Furthermore, in interpreting the meaning of claim terms, “[d]ifferences among claims can also be a useful guide in understanding the meaning of particular claim terms.” Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1314 (citations omitted). "[T]he presence of a dependent claim that adds a particular Appeal 2009-013303 Application 11/394,815 6 limitation gives rise to a presumption that the limitation in question is not present in the independent claim." Id. at 1315 (citations omitted). A proper analysis of the meaning of the language of claim 1 includes consideration of the doctrine of claim differentiation as recently applied by our reviewing court. See Saunders Group, Inc. v. Comfortrac, Inc., 492 F.3d 1326, 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (stating that where a dependent claim adds a limitation to an independent claim, the doctrine of claim differentiation supports the inference that the independent claim encompasses subject matter which does not include the added limitation). Under the doctrine of claim differentiation, we look to differences between claims to determine the meaning of claim language. See Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1315 (“[T]he presence of a dependent claim that adds a particular limitation gives rise to a presumption that the limitation in question is not present in the independent claim.”). Dependent claim 11 recites, in pertinent part, “wherein the bridge boards have connectors and signal traces to connect corresponding connectors of the first group electronic modules and second group electronic modules, the bridge boards configured without the devices of the electronic modules in the first group and the second group” (claim 11 (emphasis added)). Thus, dependent claim 11, which depends from independent claim 1, recites and expands upon the bridge board limitation of claim 1 (i.e., dependent claim 11 adds the limitation “configured without the devices”). Claim 1 broadly calls for bridge boards that are “different from the Appeal 2009-013303 Application 11/394,815 7 electronic modules” that have devices (see claim 1 on appeal), but makes no mention of the term in claim 11 of a “configured without the devices.” Thus, the doctrine of claim differentiation supports the inference that the details of dependent claim 11 which further define the bridge boards of claim 1 as being configured without devices are not necessarily encompassed by independent claim 1 which does not recite these details. See Saunders Group, Inc., 492 F.3d at 1331. In other words, claim 1 is broader than claim 11, and therefore could or could not include the details of claim 11. Accordingly, claim 11 and the doctrine of claim differentiation actually support the Examiner’s interpretation of claim 1 as broadly encompassing bridge boards that are “different from” the “electronic modules in each of the first and second groups,” including that the differences might not be that the boards are configured without devices (i.e., that the boards be configured with devices, yet still are different in another way from the electronic modules). Our affirmance of the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1 reflects our agreement with the Examiner’s recognition that claim 1 does not specify the character or type of difference between the bridge boards and the electronic modules, and that such difference could be in the electronic devices disposed on the boards, or differences in dimension (see Ans. 4). Third and Fourth Contentions We disagree with Appellant’s third and fourth contentions, because our original Decision was not premised on whether it would have been obvious to substitute or replace any of the printed wiring boards with bridge boards. Rather, our original Decision was premised on a subset of Uzuka’s Appeal 2009-013303 Application 11/394,815 8 boards being “different” than others of the set of boards (52 and 53 in Uzuka), and thus reading on the “bridge board” limitation recited in claim 1. One way that Uzuka’s bridge boards could be different is if the devices were removed to save cost and reduce complexity, as known to those of skill in the art. No suggestion is needed in Uzuka to remove the devices; rather it would be an obvious expedient and would be with the level of skill of the ordinarily skilled artisan (see Dec. 4). Even assuming, arguendo, that it would not have been obvious to remove the devices from a subset of the boards to arrive at the bridge boards recited in claim 1, slight differences in dimension or device type of the boards 52 and 53 of Uzuka would meet the “bridge boards” limitation so broadly set forth in claim 1. Summary We have carefully considered the arguments as to claim 1 raised by Appellant in the Request for Rehearing, but none of these arguments is persuasive that the original decision was in error. We find that Appellant has not shown the Board erred in finding that Uzuka teaches or suggests “bridge boards” that “are different from the electronic modules” in sustaining the rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). Although the concluding paragraph on page 3 of the Request for Rehearing implies that Appellant requests rehearing of all of the claims (i.e., claims 1-20), we note that Appellant does not provide any separate arguments on the merits as to claims 2-11 which depend from claim 1, or as to independent claims 12 and 19 and respective corresponding dependent claims 13-18 and 20. Based on (i) the content of Appellant’s Request for Appeal 2009-013303 Application 11/394,815 9 Rehearing, which only discusses claim 1 on the merits, and (ii) the fact that the term in question (“bridge boards are different from the electronic modules”) does not appear in claims 12 and 19, we only reconsider our decision with respect to claim 1. DECISION In view of the foregoing discussion, we grant Appellant’s Request for Rehearing to the extent of reconsidering our decision, but we deny Appellant’s request with respect to making any change thereto. REQUEST FOR REHEARING DENIED kis TROP PRUNER & HU, PC 1616 S. VOSS ROAD, SUITE 750 HOUSTON, TX 77057-2631 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation