Ex Parte Heink

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Oct 14, 2014

11623278 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 14, 2014)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte MATTHIAS HEINK
____________________

Appeal 2012-0032721
Application 11/623,2782
Technology Center 2400
____________________

Before JOSEPH A. FISCHETTI, NINA L. MEDLOCK, and
BART A. GERSTENBLITH Administrative Patent Judges.

MEDLOCK, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s final
rejection of claims 1–29. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.

1 Our decision references Appellant’s Appeal Brief (“Br.,” filed June 21,
2011) and the Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.,” mailed September 29, 2011).
2 Appellant identifies the real party in interest as LANTIQ
DEUTSCHLAND GMBH. Br. 3.
Appeal 2012-003272
Application 11/623,278

2
CLAIMED INVENTION
Appellant’s claimed invention “relates to a detector to search for
control data” (Spec. ¶ 1).
Claim 1, reproduced below with added bracketed notations, is
illustrative of the subject matter on appeal:
1. A device, comprising:
[(a)] at least one input terminal to receive data
comprising control data from a plurality of logical ports; and
[(b)] a detector, coupled to the at least one input
terminal, configured to search for the control data in a first set
of pre-determined control data, wherein a respective subset of
the first set is assigned to a respective one of the logical ports
and the respective subset is excluded from the first set when
searching for the control data received from the respective
logical port.

REJECTION
Claims 1–29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Tuck (US 2003/0053474 A1, pub. Mar. 20, 2003) and James
(US 7,117,300 B1, iss. Oct. 3, 2006).

ANALYSIS
Appellant argues claims 1–29 as a group (Br. 6–10). We select
claim 1 as representative. The remaining claims stand or fall with claim 1.
37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii) (2011).
We are not persuaded by Appellant’s argument that the Examiner
erred in rejecting claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) because James, on which
the Examiner relies, fails to disclose or suggest a detector receiving a first
set of pre-determined control data, where the search for control data in the
first set of pre-determined control data received from a selected one of a
Appeal 2012-003272
Application 11/623,278

3
plurality of logical ports excludes the subset of the first set of
pre-determined control data assigned to the selected logical port, i.e.,
element (b), as recited in claim 1 (Br. 7–9). Instead, we agree with the
Examiner that James teaches this feature at column 6, lines 46–54 (Ans. 5
and 11–13).
Appellant argues that James does not disclose a search, as called for in
claim 1, because James considers all the entries of the content addressable
memory (“CAM”) and then excludes those entries that do not meet a
particular criterion from further searching whereas the claimed invention, on
the other hand, immediately excludes a subset of the CAM entries from the
search:
James defines a preference for a restricted search to compare a
search key KEY to only those CAM entries having index values
greater than a search index value (James, Col. 7, lines 28 – 30).
The Appellants submit that such a search actually does require
consideration of all CAM entries, though those entries that do
not meet the primary criterion are immediately excluded from
further searching.
On the other hand, the present claim immediately
excludes a sub-set of the control data that has been already
assigned to a logical port.

(Br. 8–9). Appellant’s argument is not persuasive.
James discloses a method and apparatus for executing a restricted
search in a content addressable memory (“CAM”) see, e.g., James, Abstract
and col. 6, ll. 46–54, and explicitly describes that “[a] restricted search
operation may compare only a subset (e.g., a portion) of the CAM entries to
a search key device.” Id. at col. 6, ll. 49–51. We agree with the Examiner
that a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand that restricting a
search operation to a certain subset of the entries in the CAM is equivalent
Appeal 2012-003272
Application 11/623,278

4
to excluding the remaining CAM entries, i.e., the CAM entries that are not
within that subset (the complementary subset), from the search operation
(Ans. 12–13). As such, the James restricted search meets the claim
language.3
Appellant also argues that James makes “no mention of the CAM
entries being searched coming from multiple logical ports” (Br. 7).
However, the Examiner relies on Tuck, not James, as disclosing this feature
(Ans. 4–5).
In view of the foregoing, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of
claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). We also sustain the Examiner’s rejection
of claims 2–29, which stand or fall with claim 1.

DECISION
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1–29 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) is
affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED

Klh

3 Appellant’s assertion that the James search requires “consideration” of all
CAM entries (Br. 8–9), even if accepted, is of no moment. Claim 1 recites
that “the respective subset is excluded from the first set when searching”
(emphasis added). And James explicitly discloses that “a restricted search
operation may search less than all of the CAM entries.” See James, col. 6,
ll. 53–54. In other words, a subset of the CAM entries is excluded when
searching.