Ex Parte Hall et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardAug 21, 201812272217 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 21, 2018) Copy Citation 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 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation