Ex Parte Huang et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Apr 27, 2016

13162822 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 27, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/162,822 06/17/2011
109673 7590 04/29/2016
McClure, Qualey & Rodack, LLP
3100 Interstate North Circle
Suite 150
Atlanta, GA 30339
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Liang-Wei Huang
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.
251812-4460 8353
EXAMINER
JOSEPH, JAISON
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2633
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
04/29/2016 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):
uspatents@mqrlaw.com
dan.mcclure@mqrlaw.com
gina.silverio@mqrlaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Exparte LIANG-WEI HUANG, MEI-CHAO YEH,
TING-FA YU, and TA-CHIN TSENG
Appeal2014-009653
Application 13/162,822 1
Technology Center 2600
Before ST. JOHN COURTENAY III, THU A. DANG, and
LARRY J. HUME, Administrative Patent Judges.
HUME, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the Non-
Final rejection of claims 1 and 11. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b ).
We AFFIRM-IN-PART.
1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Realtek
Semiconductor Corp. App. Br. 2.
Appeal2014-009653
Application 13/162,822
STATEMENT OF THE CASE2
The Invention
Appellants' claimed invention relates to a receiver device and more
particularly to a device and a method for Non Return to Zero (NRZ) Clock
Data Recovery (CDR) calibration. Spec. 1.
Exemplary Claims
Claims 1 and 11, reproduced below, are representative of the subject
matter on appeal (emphases and formatting added to contested limitations):
1. A device for Non Return to Zero (NRZ) Clock
Data Recovery (CDR) calibration, comprising:
a CDR unit, for receiving a compensative signal to
generate a sampling clock signal, a data signal, an error signal
and a transition sampling signal, the error signal being output
from the CDR unit; and
a weight calculator unit, separate and distinct from the
CDR unit, coupled to the CDR unit, and configured to receive
the error signal and the data signal and then performing
weight calculation to generate a weight data;
wherein the CDR unit adjusts the sampling clock signal
according to the weight data.
11. A method for Non Return to Zero (NRZ) Clock
Data Recovery (CDR) calibration, comprising:
2 Our decision relies upon Appellants' Appeal Brief ("App. Br.," filed Apr.
29, 2014 ); Reply Brief ("Reply Br.," filed Sept. 16, 2014 ); Examiner's
Answer ("Ans.," mailed Aug. 4, 2014 ); Non-Final Office Action ("Non-
Final Act.," mailed Dec. 4, 2013 ); and the original Specification ("Spec.,"
filed June 17, 2011 ).
2
Appeal2014-009653
Application 13/162,822
receiving a compensative signal to generate a sampling
clock signal, a data signal, an error signal and a transition
sampling signal;
performing weight calculation based on the error signal
as an input to the weight calculation, the transition sampling
signal and the data signal to generate weight data; and
adjusting the sampling clock signal according to the
weight data.
Prior Art
The Examiner relies upon the following prior art as evidence in
rejecting the claims on appeal:
Do et al. ("Do") US 2009/0296867 Al Dec. 3, 2009
Re} ections on Appeal3
RI. Claim 1 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
obvious over Do. App. Br. 4.
R2. Claim 11 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a) as being
anticipated by Do. App. Br. 3.
ISSUES AND ANALYSIS
In reaching this decision, we consider all evidence presented and all
arguments actually made by Appellants. We do not consider arguments
which Appellants could have made but chose not to make in the Briefs so
that we deem any such arguments as waived. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(vii).
3 The Examiner indicates claims 2-10 and 12-15 are objected to as being
dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in
independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any
intervening claims. Non-final Act. 5.
3
Appeal2014-009653
Application 13/162,822
We agree with Appellants' arguments with respect to the § 103
rejection of claim 1. However, we disagree with Appellants' arguments with
respect to claim 11, and we incorporate herein and adopt as our own: (1) the
findings and reasons set forth by the Examiner in the action from which this
appeal is taken, and (2) the reasons and rebuttals set forth in the Examiner's
Answer in response to Appellants' arguments in connection with claim 11.
We incorporate such findings, reasons, and rebuttals herein by reference
unless otherwise noted. However, we highlight and address specific
findings and arguments with respect to claims 1 and 11 for emphases as
follows.
1. § 103 Rejection RI of Claim 1
Issue 1
Appellants argue (App. Br. 4--8; Reply Br. 2-3) the Examiner's
rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being obvious over Do is in
error. These contentions present us with the following issue:
Did the Examiner err in finding Do teaches or suggests the limitation
of" a weight calculator unit, separate and distinct from the CDR unit," as
recited in claim 1?
Analysis
While we disagree with Appellants argument under § 103 concerning
the separateness of the recited weight calculator and CDR unit (see App.
Br. 5 and 7), we find Appellants' further contention to be persuasive:
[C]laim 1 requires that the "weight calculator unit ... [is]
configured to receive the error signal." The Phase Error Signal
(construed to be the claimed "error signal") is generated by (not
4
Appeal2014-009653
Application 13/162,822
received by) the feedback circuit 324. Therefore, elements 320
and 324 cannot satisfy the claim limitation of the weight
calculator unit."
App. Br. 7-8.
The Examiner finds Do's component 320 (phase detector) generates
the claimed "error signal" and calculates the weights based on the phase
error. Ans. 3. The Examiner has mapped "a CDR unit" and "a weight
calculator unit" both to Figure 3, generally. Non-final Act. 4. We note
Figure 3 shows the phase detector 320 outputs "average of weighted I-bit
values 322," and not the "phase error signal 308." Do, Fig. 3. We further
note, feedback circuit 324 outputs the "phase error signal 308." Id.
We find the Examiner has not mapped, with specificity, each
contested limitation of claim 1 to the corresponding feature in the cited prior
art. For us to sustain the Examiner's rejection on this record, we would be
required to speculate as to how each contested limitation is read on the
corresponding feature found in the cited prior art, and from such speculation,
make conclusions, without any evidentiary basis, on what would have been
obvious to one of ordinary skill in that art at the time of the invention. We
decline to engage in such speculation.
Accordingly, we cannot sustain the Examiner's§ 103 rejection of
independent claim 1.
5
Appeal2014-009653
Application 13/162,822
2. § 102 Rejection R2 of Claim 11
Issue 2
Appellants argue (App. Br. 9) the Examiner's rejection of claim 11
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a) as being anticipated by Do is in error. These
contentions present us with the following issue:
Did the Examiner err in finding the cited prior art discloses the
limitation of "performing weight calculation based on the error signal as an
input to the weight calculation," as recited in claim 11?
Analysis
Appellants contend:
[C]laim 11 additionally recites: ''performing weight
calculation based on the error signal as an input to the weight
calculation .... " It is clear that the operations of elements 320
and 324 of Do are not performed "based on the error signal as
an input to the weight calculation," which is the signal output
from element 324.
App. Br. 9-10.
We are not persuaded by Appellants' arguments because we find, in
agreement with the Examiner (Non-Final Act. 3; Ans. 5), Do's phase
detector 320 in Figure 3, which receives the error signal 308 through phase
interpolator 302, discloses "performing weight calculation based on the error
signal." As found by the Examiner, we agree that Do's phase detector 320
performs a "weight calculation" and outputs data representing an average of
weighted I-bit values 322. Ans. 5.
Accordingly, Appellants have not provided sufficient evidence or
argument to persuade us of any reversible error in the Examiner's rejection
6
Appeal2014-009653
Application 13/162,822
of claim 11. Therefore, on this record, we sustain the Examiner's
anticipation rejection of independent claim 11.
REPLY BRIEF
To the extent Appellants may advance new arguments in the Reply
Brief (Reply Br. 1-3) not in response to a shift in the Examiner's position in
the Answer, we note arguments raised in a reply brief that were not raised in
the appeal brief or are not responsive to arguments raised in the Examiner's
Answer will not be considered except for good cause. See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.41 (b )(2).
CONCLUSIONS
(1) The Examiner erred with respect to obviousness Rejection RI
of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over the cited prior art of record, and we
do not sustain the rejection.
(2) The Examiner did not err with respect to anticipation Rejection
R2 of claim 11 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a) over the cited prior art of record,
and we sustain the rejection.
DECISION
We reverse the Examiner's decision rejecting claim 1 under§ 103, and
we affirm the Examiner's decision rejecting claim 11 under § 102.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
7