Ex Parte Hofstee et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

May 27, 2016

13269583 (P.T.A.B. May. 27, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/269,583 10/08/2011
40412 7590 06/01/2016
IBM CORPORATION-AUSTIN (JVL)
C/O LESLIE A. VAN LEEUWEN
6123 PEBBLE GARDEN CT.
AUSTIN, TX 78739
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Harm Peter Hofstee
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.
AUS920030403US2 4790
EXAMINER
HASSAN, AURANGZEB
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2184
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/01/2016 ELECTRONIC
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.
Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the
following e-mail address( es):
leslie@vI-patents.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte HARM PETER HOFSTEE, CHARLES RAY JOHNS, and
JAMES ALLAN KAHLE
Appeal2014-005662
Application 13/269.583
Technology Center 2100
Before JAMES R. HUGHES, MONICA S. ULLAGADDI, and
MATTHEW J. McNEILL, Administrative Patent Judges.
HUGHES, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the
Examiner's Final decision rejecting claims 1 and 3-7. Claim 2 has been
canceled. (See App. Br. 10, Non-Final Act. 1.) 1 We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
1 We refer to Appellants' Specification ("Spec.") filed January 22, 2013
(claiming benefit of US 10/697,903, filed October 30, 2003); Appeal Brief
("App. Br,") filed Oct. 24, 2013; and Reply Brief ("Reply Br.") filed April
10, 2014. We also refer to the Examiner's Answer ("Ans.") mailed February
14, 2014, and Non-Final Office Action (Non-Final Rejection) ("Non-Final
Act.") mailed August 12, 2013.
Appeal2014-005662
Application 13/269,583
We reverse.
Appellants 'Invention
The invention at issue on appeal concerns interface controllers
including a common component bus (a dynamic interface), individual
controller buses interconnected with individual interface controllers, and
logic for dynamically connecting the common component bus to the
individual controller buses. (Spec. i-fi-f l, 10-13; Abstract.)
Illustrative Claim
Independent claim 1, reproduced below, further illustrates the
invention:
1. A configurable interface controller, comprising:
a common component bus, wherein the common
component bus comprises a dynamic interface that includes a
plurality of interface pins;
a plurality of individual controller buses that are adapted
to interface with a plurality of individual interface controllers;
and
adaptation logic to dynamically connect the common
component bus to the individual controller buses.
Rejection on Appeal
The Examiner rejects claims 1 and 3-7 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Lee (US 6,035,345; issued Mar. 7, 2000) and Shui
(US 2004/0168041 Al; pub. Aug. 26, 2004).
ISSUE
Based upon our review of the administrative record, Appellants'
contentions, and the Examiner's findings and conclusions, the pivotal issue
before us follows:
2
Appeal2014-005662
Application 13/269,583
Does the Examiner err in concluding that the combination of Lee and
Shui collectively would have taught or suggested "a common component
bus ... compris[ing] a dynamic interface that includes a plurality of
interface pins; a plurality of individual controller buses that are adapted to
interface with a plurality of individual interface controllers; and adaptation
logic to dynamically connect the common component bus to the individual
controller buses" as recited in Appellants' claim 1?
ANALYSIS
Appellants contend that Lee and Shui do not teach the disputed
limitations of claim 1. (App. Br. 4--9; Reply Br. 2-3 .) In particular,
Appellants argue that "Lee does not teach using any common interface buses
nor does Lee teach or suggest any logic that dynamically connects any
common bus to an individual controller bus" (App. Br. 5; see Reply Br. 2-3)
and instead "Lee essentially teaches a switch that provides 'a serial port
switching circuit for simply switching connections between two serial
communication connectors and two serial ports of an input/ output
controller"' (App. Br. 4). Appellants also argue that Shui does not teach a
common component bus but instead teaches "'a main bus [that] has a pin
map and clock rate which are substantially fixed"' (App. Br. 8) and
adjusting the mapping of the pins between two processors (id.). Appellants
further contend that neither Lee nor Shui teach connecting a common bus to
multiple controller buses. (App. Br. 8-9; see Reply Br. 2-3.)
Appellants persuade us of error in the obviousness rejection of claim
1. As explained by Appellants (App. Br. 8-9; Reply Br. 2-3), neither Lee
nor Shui teach connecting a common bus (common component bus) to
3
Appeal2014-005662
Application 13/269,583
multiple controller buses. The Examiner cites Lee as teaching multiple
controller buses (Non-Final Act. 3; Ans. 3; see Lee Fig. 3, 4a). Appellants
correctly contend that "Lee teaches a switching mechanism that simply
switches between two components (Cl and C2 being connected to I/O
controller via 'switching arrangement' 20)." (App. Br. 9 (emphasis added);
see Reply Br. 2-3.) Lee describes only a single input/output controller (Lee
col. 2, 11. 14--17; Figs. 1-3, 4a) and, therefore, does not teach multiple
individual controller buses. Appellants' claim 1 requires connection to
multiple interface controllers through multiple individual controller buses.
We cannot agree with the Examiner's interpretation of Lee.
Consequently, we are constrained by the record before us to find that
the Examiner erred in concluding Lee and Shui teach or suggest the disputed
limitations of Appellants' claim 1. Claims 3-7 depend on claim 1.
Accordingly, we reverse the Examiner's obviousness rejection of claims 1
and 3-7.
CONCLUSION
Appellants have shown that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1
and 3-7 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
DECISION
We reverse the Examiner's rejections of claims 1 and 3-7.
REVERSED
4