Ex Parte Gregorcyk

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jun 22, 2011

10279484 (B.P.A.I. Jun. 22, 2011)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte ARTHUR J. GREGORCYK JR.
____________

Appeal 2009-012105
Application 10/279,484
Technology Center 2100
____________

Before KRISTEN L. DROESCH, GREGORY J. GONSALVES and
ERIC B. CHEN, Administrative Patent Judges.

DROESCH, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal 2009-012105
Application 10/279,484

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Dell Products L.P. (“Dell”), the real party in interest, seeks review
under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of a Non-Final Rejection of claims 1, 2, 4-14, 16-
18 and 20. We AFFIRM.

BACKGROUND
Dell’s invention is related to providing redundant access to a single
port information storage device. Spec. p. 2, ll. 28-30.
Claim 1 is illustrative:
A system for communicating with a SATA drive port
through one of plural bridges, the system comprising:
a multiplexing device interfaced with the SATA drive port,
the multiplexing device operable to select one of plural
data signals to communicate with the SATA drive port;
a first bridge port operable to accept a SATA signal from a
first bridge;
a second bridge port operable to accept a SATA signal from
a second bridge;
a first signal detector interfaced with the multiplexing device
and with the first bridge port, the first signal detector
operable detect a SATA signal comprising an establish
port command received from the first bridge and to direct
the multiplexing device to select the first bridge port to
communicate with the SATA drive port;
a second signal detector interfaced with the multiplexing
device and with the second bridge port, the second signal
detector operable detect a SATA signal comprising an
establish port command received from the second bridge
port and to direct the multiplexing device to select the
second bridge port to communicate with the SATA drive
port.
Appeal 2009-012105
Application 10/279,484

3
The Examiner relies on the following prior art:
Terakita 6,209,035 B1 Mar. 27, 2001
Weber 2003/0135577 A1 Jul. 17, 2003
El-Batal 2003/0221061 A1 Nov. 27, 2003
Bob Norman and Frank Lee, Implementing Serial ATA in Next-
Generation Computer Systems, Computer Technology Review, Vol. XXII,
No. 2 (Feb. 2002) (“CTR”).

Claims 1, 2, 41, 8-12, 17 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as unpatentable over Weber and Terakita.
Claims 5-7, 13, 14 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Weber, Terakita and El-Batal.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Weber, Terakita and CTR.

ISSUE
Did the Examiner incorrectly find that Weber and Terakita describe a
first signal detector operable to detect a signal comprising an establish port
command received from a first bridge and to direct the multiplexing device
to select the first bridge port to communicate with the drive port?

FINDINGS OF FACT (“FF”)
Weber
1. Weber describes, referring to Figure 2 below [numbers from Figure 2
inserted], a disk drive canister [200] including a dual porting apparatus [202]

1 Dell incorrectly lists claim 3 in its Grounds of Rejection to be Reviewed on
Appeal. Claim 3 was cancelled in the Response filed 09 October 2007.
App
App

for p
attac
2
seco
and
28.
3
signa
seco
seco
regen
eal 2009-0
lication 10
orting a se
hment) dis
Figure 2
. Dual por
nd regener
second reg
. The first
ls to a firs
nd regener
nd serial m
erator [21
12105
/279,484
rial disk d
k drive [2
depicts an
ting appar
ator [210]
enerators
regenerat
t serial ma
ator [210]
aster devi
4] is used
rive or SA
04]. ¶ 24
Weber’s F
apparatus
atus [202]
and a thir
[206], [210
or [206] is
ster devic
is used fo
ce via inpu
for transm
4
TA (serial
.
igure 2 is
for dual p
includes a
d regenera
] and the
used for t
e via input
r transmitt
t/output c
itting and
advanced
below:
orting a se
first rege
tor [214] c
serial disk
ransmittin
/output co
ing and re
onnection
receiving
technolog
rial disk d
nerator [20
onnected
drive [204
g and rece
nnection [
ceiving sig
[212], and
signals fro
y
rive.
6], a
to the first
]. ¶¶ 26-
iving
208], the
nals to a
the third
m the firs

t
Appeal 2009-012105
Application 10/279,484

5
and second regenerators [206], [210] and the serial disk drive [204]. ¶¶ 26-
28.
4. Synchronization logic [216] is connected to the first, second and third
regenerators [206], [210], [214] for synchronizing data transfers between
one of the first and second regenerators [206], [210] and the third
regenerator [214]. ¶ 29.
5. Dual porting apparatus [202] includes an auto detector [218]
connected to the input/output of the first and second serial master devices
[208], [212] and the synchronization logic [216]. ¶ 30.
6. The auto detector [218] automatically switches between the first and
second master devices based on the presence or absence of idle characters
transmitted by either of the first and second master devices. ¶ 31; claims 1-
3, 10.
7. The auto detector [218] controls the switching between the first and
second serial master devices allowing the input/output of data between the
dual porting apparatus [202] and one of the first and second master devices
at a time. ¶ 31; claims 1-4, 10, 12, 23, 24.
8. Weber describes an alternative embodiment in which a dual porting
apparatus is switched between the first and second master devices through
control signals sent from an external source, such as a SATA master device.
¶¶ 23, 32; Fig. 3.
Terakita
9. Terakita describes a communication means (i.e., communication
network or server system) and a plurality of communication nodes (i.e.,
computers) each of which includes a means for requesting a communication
link which requests the communication means to establish a first
Appeal 2009-012105
Application 10/279,484

6
communication link through a first communication port. Col. 1, ll. 8-11; col.
2, ll. 35-48; col. 3, ll. 23-44; col. 4, ll. 28-64.

ANALYSIS
Claim 1 recites: “the first signal detector operable detect a SATA
signal comprising an establish port command received from the first
bridge . . . .” The Examiner finds that Weber describes all the limitations of
claim 1 including a first signal detector (i.e., auto detector [218]) detecting a
SATA signal based on the presence of idle characters transmitted by the first
or second master device. Ans. 4-6 (citing Weber ¶¶ 8, 23, 28-31; Fig. 2); FF
6. The Examiner finds that Weber does not explicitly describe the SATA
signal as comprising an establish port command. Ans. 6. The Examiner
finds that Terakita describes a data transfer method and system comprising a
communications means for establishing communication between two nodes
by sending a request to establish a communication link through a
communication port. Ans. 6 (citing Terakita col. 2, ll. 35-48); FF 9. The
Examiner determined that it would have been obvious to modify Weber so
that the SATA signal comprises an establish port command as taught by
Terakita in order to increase or improve the reliability of data transfer
through a communication path established using a specific port and to
reduce hardware logic circuitry by using a software implementation. Ans. 6.
Dell argues that there would have been no motivation to modify
Weber to include an establish port command because Weber has no use for
an establish port command. App. Br. 4; Reply Br. 1. Dell argues that
Weber maintains synchronization or connections to a port and describes that
Appeal 2009-012105
Application 10/279,484

7
the selection of a port is performed by external control logic. App. Br. 4;
Reply Br. 1 (citing Weber ¶¶ 23, 33).
Dell’s arguments are unpersuasive because they attack the Weber
reference separately rather than addressing the combined teachings of Weber
and Terakita. One cannot show non-obviousness by attacking references
individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references.
In re Merck & Co., Inc., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Circ. 1986); In re Keller,
642 F.2d 413, 426 (CCPA 1981). Dell’s arguments are also misplaced
because they focus on an embodiment described by Weber but not relied
upon by the Examiner in making the rejection. The Examiner directs
attention to Weber’s description of an embodiment in which an auto detector
[218] is incorporated in the dual porting apparatus [202]. Ans. 4-6, (citing
Weber ¶¶ 30-31). In this embodiment, the auto detector [218] automatically
switches between the first and second master devices based on the presence
or absence of idle characters transmitted by either of the master devices and
controls the switching to allow the input/output of data between the dual
porting apparatus [202] and one of the first and second master devices at a
time. Weber ¶¶ 30-31; claims 1-4, 10, 12, 23, 24; FFs 5-7. However, Dell’s
arguments focus on Weber’s embodiment in which the dual porting
apparatus is switched between the first and second devices utilizing control
signals sent from an external source. ¶¶ 23, 32; Fig. 3; FF 8.
Next, Dell argues that Terakita does not describe an establish port
command. Reply Br. 1. Dell’s argument is unpersuasive because Terakita
describes a plurality of communication nodes (i.e., computers) each of which
includes a means for requesting a communication link that requests the
communication network or server system to establish a first communication
Appeal 2009-012105
Application 10/279,484

8
link through a first communication port. Col. 1, ll. 8-11; col. 2, ll. 35-48;
col. 3, ll. 23-44; col. 4, ll. 28-64; FF 9.
Dell further argues that Terakita does not describe or suggest selecting
a port based on an establish port command. Reply Br. 1-2. However, Dell’s
argument is not commensurate in scope with the claim language since claim
1 does not require the selection of the bridge port to be based on the
establish port command. Rather, claim 1 requires “a first signal detector
operable to detect a SATA signal comprising an establish port command
received from the first bridge and to direct the multiplexing device to
select the first bridge port.” (emphasis added). Dell’s arguments are further
misplaced because the Examiner relies on Weber, not Terakita, for
describing selecting a port or “direct[ing] the multiplexing device to select
the first bridge port,” as recited in claim 1. Ans. 5.
Last, Dell argues that Terakita teaches away from claim 1. App. Br.
4, Reply Br. 1. In particular, Dell argues that Terakita describes establishing
communication through multiple ports so that whichever link is established
earlier supports a data transfer. App. Br. 4; Reply Br. 1-2 (citing Terakita,
col. 2, l. 59; col. 3, l. 59-col. 4, l. 16).
Dell’s arguments too narrowly focus on the specific teachings of
Terakita. The particular use of the establish port command in Terakita need
not be preserved as suggested by Dell. The use of patents as references is
not limited to what the patentees describe as their own inventions or to the
problems with which they are concerned, as they are a part of the literature
and are relevant for all they contain. In re Heck, 699 F.2d 1331, 1333 (Fed.
Cir. 1983) (citing In re Lemelson, 397 F.2d 1006, 1009 (CCPA 1968)).
Additionally, Dell does not offer a meaningful explanation as to why
Appeal 2009-012105
Application 10/279,484

9
Terakita teaches away from the claimed invention. A teaching of something
different does not by itself constitute a teaching away. “Under the proper
legal standard, a reference will teach away when it suggests that the
developments flowing from its disclosures are unlikely to produce the
objective of the applicant's invention.” Syntex (U.S.A.) v. Apotex, Inc., 407
F.3d 1371, 1380 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (citing In re Gurley, 27 F.3d 551, 553
(Fed. Cir. 1994)). Dell does not offer a sufficient explanation why Terakita
would suggest that any developments flowing from its disclosure are
unlikely to produce the objective of the Dell’s invention.
Dell does not present separate arguments substantively addressing the
limitations of independent claims 8 and 17 and dependent claims 2, 4, 9-12
and 18. App. Br. 3-6; Reply Br. 1-2. For all these reasons, we sustain the
rejection of claims 1, 2, 4, 8-12, 17 and 18 as obvious over Weber and
Terakita. Dell also does not present arguments addressing the rejections of
claims 5-7, 13, 14, 16 and 20. For these same reasons, we sustain the
rejection of claims 5-7, 13, 14 and 20 as obvious over Weber, Terakita and
El-Batal and the rejection of claim 16 as obvious over Weber, Terakita and
CTR.

DECISION
We AFFIRM the rejection of claims 1, 2, 4, 8-12, 17 and 18 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Weber and Terakita.
We AFFIRM the rejection of claims 5-7, 13, 14 and 20 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Weber, Terakita and El-Batal.
We AFFIRM the rejection of claim 16 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Weber, Terakita and CTR.
Appeal 2009-012105
Application 10/279,484

10

TIME PERIOD
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a).

AFFIRMED

msc