Ex Parte Hall et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 21, 2018

12272217 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 21, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/272,217 11/17/2008
75584 7590 08/22/2018
IBM Corp. (WIP)
c/o Walder Intellectual Property Law, P.C.
17304 Preston Road
Suite 200
Dallas, TX 75252
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
William E. Hall
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.
YOR920080184US1 5883
EXAMINER
WINTER, JOHN M
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3685
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/22/2018 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 PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte WILLIAM E. HALL, GUERNEY D.H. HUNT,
PAUL A. KARGER, MARK F. MERGEN,
DAVID R. SAFFORD and DAVID C. TOLL
Appeal2016-006798
Application 12/272,217 1
Technology Center 3600
Before MICHAEL C. ASTORINO, BRADLEY B. BAY AT, and
ROBERT J. SILVERMAN, Administrative Patent Judges.
SILVERMAN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
decision rejecting claims 1-14, 16-19, and 21-23. 2 We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We REVERSE.
1 The Appellants identify International Business Machines Corporation as
the real party in interest. Appeal Br. 2.
2 Although claim 15 is included in the Office Action Summary of the Final
Office Action (June 30, 2015), no rejection is set forth for claim 15.
Appeal 2016-006798
Application 12/272,217
ILLUSTRATIVE CLAIM
1. A method, in an integrated circuit chip, for providing
secure data communication links, the method comprising:
initiating transmission of a continuous stream of frames
across a data communication link, wherein the continuous
stream of frames is a stream of frames in which each frame
comprises data and there are no fixed timing interval breaks
between frames in the continuous stream;
determining, in a component of the integrated circuit
chip, whether data is received from a source for transmission
across the data communication link as part of the continuous
stream of frames;
in response to determining that data is received from the
source for transmission across the data communication link,
converting, by the component, the data to one or more first
fixed length frames and transmitting, by the component, the one
or more first fixed length frames on the data communication
link as part of the continuous stream of frames; and
in response to determining that data is not received to be
transmitted across the data communication link, transmitting,
by the component, as part of the continuous stream of frames,
one or more second fixed length frames comprising fill data, for
inclusion in the frames of the continuous stream, wherein the
method is repeated continuously while the continuous stream is
active such that the continuous stream comprises a combination
of the one or more first fixed length frames in response to data
being received from the source for transmission across the data
communication link and the one or more second fixed length
frames in response to data not being received from the source
for transmission across the data communication link.
2
Appeal 2016-006798
Application 12/272,217
CITED REFERENCES
The Examiner relies upon the following references:
Gardner et al.
(hereinafter "Gardner")
US 6,327,275 Bl Dec. 4, 2001
Meylan et al. US 2008/0273537 Al Nov. 6, 2008
(hereinafter "Meylan")
Sendrovitz US 7,522,606 Bl Apr. 21, 2009
Hardie et al. US 7,545,819 Bl June 9, 2009
(hereinafter "Hardie")
Loh US 7,574,737 Bl
Baumbach et al. US 8,094,562 B 1
(hereinafter "Baumbach")
REJECTIONS
Aug. 11, 2009
Jan. 10,2012
I. Claims 1, 2, 12-14, and 21-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ I03(a) as unpatentable over Hardie and Baumbach.
II. Claims 3-5, 16, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as
unpatentable over Hardie, Baumbach, and Sendrovitz.
III. Claims 6, 7, 11, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as
unpatentable over Hardie, Baumbach, Sendrovitz, and Meylan.
IV. Claims 8, 9, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as
unpatentable over Hardie, Baumbach, and Meylan.
V. Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as unpatentable
over Hardie, Baumbach, and Loh.
VI. Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as unpatentable
over Hardie, Baumbach, and Gardener.
3
Appeal 2016-006798
Application 12/272,217
FINDINGS OF FACT
The findings of fact relied upon, which are supported by a
preponderance of the evidence, appear in the following Analysis.
ANALYSIS
Independent claim 1 recites, in relevant part:
initiating transmission of a continuous stream of frames
across a data communication link, wherein the continuous
stream of frames is a stream of frames in which each frame
comprises data and there are no fixed timing interval breaks
between frames in the continuous stream.
(Emphasis added). The Appellants contend that the absence of "fixed timing
interval breaks between frames" is vital to the data-security function of
transmissions performed according to the claimed subject matter:
The independent claims explicitly state that the "continuous"
stream of frames means that there are no breaks in the frames,
i.e. one frame is transmitted immediately after the other. This
is important to the claimed invention in that by having a
continuous stream of frames, a potential interloper will not be
able to discern the start/stop of the transmission of actual data.
This in combination with the fact that when there is no actual
data from the source to be transmitted, second frames having
fill data are transmitted, makes it virtually impossible for an
interloper to identify where actual data exists in the continuous
stream.
Appeal Br. 11.
The rejection relies upon Hardie for teaching, among other features,
independent claim 1 's recitation of "initiating transmission of a continuous
stream of frames," wherein "there are no fixed timing interval breaks
between frames in the continuous stream." See Final Action 3 ( citing
Hardie, col. 4, 11. 27-3 7, Fig. 1, claim 1 ). See also Answer 2-3 ( citing
4
Appeal 2016-006798
Application 12/272,217
Hardie, col. 4, 11. 27-32). The Examiner states that Hardie "discloses a
process for transmitting a synchronous data stream, Examiner notes that a
synchronous transmission is known to be a form of data transfer in which
data is transmitted in blocks separated by equal time intervals." Answer 2
(emphasis added). According to the Examiner, Hardie's "synchronous data
stream teaches a continuous stream of frames because data is transmitted
constantly for a period of time intervals." Id.
Yet, as the Appellants argue (see Appeal Br. 10-11, Reply Br. 2-5),
the Examiner's account of Hardie is contrary to claim 1 's recitation that
there must be "no fixed timing interval breaks between frames in the
continuous stream." Further, the Examiner does not adequately explain why
claim 1 of Hardie might disclose the recited "transmission of a continuous
stream of frames across a data communication link" in which "there are no
fixed timing interval breaks between frames in the continuous stream." See
Appeal Br. 10.
In view of the foregoing, we are persuaded that claim 1 was rejected
erroneously. The same analysis applies to independent claim 14, which both
the Appellants (see Appeal Br. 4--17, Reply Br. 2-10) and the Examiner (see
Final Action 2--4, Answer 2-5) address together with claim 1. Accordingly,
we do not sustain the rejection of independent claims 1 and 14, and their
dependent claims 2-13, 16-19, and 21-23 under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a).
DECISION
We REVERSE the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-14, 16-19,
and 21-23 under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a).
REVERSED
5