Ex Parte Huang et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardSep 16, 201611735976 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 16, 2016) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 111735,976 04/16/2007 109673 7590 09/20/2016 McClure, Qualey & Rodack, LLP 3100 Interstate North Circle Suite 150 Atlanta, GA 30339 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Jing Jung 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. 251812-1230 2962 EXAMINER DANG,KHANH ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2185 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 09/20/2016 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 Ex parte JING JUNG HUANG and YI CHIH HUANG Appeal2014-008220 Application 11/735,976 Technology Center 2100 Before MARC S. HOFF, ELENI MANTIS MERCADER, and JOHN A. EVANS, Administrative Patent Judges. EV ANS, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON REQUEST FOR REHEARil...JG INTRODUCTION Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 41.52, Appellants submitted a Request for Rehearing (filed July 14, 2016) ("Request," "Req. Reh'g."). Appellants request rehearing of the Decision of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board ("Board") mailed May 25, 2016 ("Decision," "Op."), in which we REVERSED the final rejection and entered a NEW GROUND OF REJECTION for Claims 21, 22, 25, 27, and 28 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being obvious over Lee and Drerup as set forth in the rejection of Claims 21 and 26 in the Final Action mailed August 6, 2009. The Request alleges that the Board misapprehended and overlooked a number of points previously argued by Appellants in the Appeal Brief. Req. Appeal2014-008723 Application 13/175,677 Reh' g. 1. We disagree. ANALYSIS CLAIM21 Claim 21, the only independent claim, recites: 21. A method for managing device access to a priority-based shared bus among a plurality of bus master devices having different priorities and a central processing unit, comprising: setting the central processing unit to have a highest priority access to the shared bus; using a timer to establish a predetermined period of time; sending a plurality of bus request signals by the central processing unit for requesting access to the shared bus; sending a predetermined number of bus grant signals by a bus arbiter during the predetermined period of time for responding to the bus request signals and granting the central processing unit to use the shared bus; and setting the central processing unit to have a lower priority access to the shared bus than at least one of the plurality of bus master devices, in response to a predetermined number of bus grant signals within the predetermined period of time. Appellants contend that the Board misapprehended the recitation "using a timer to establish a predetermined period of time." Request 1. Appellants maintain that the Board adopted the interpretation found by the Examiner in the Final Action of August 6, 2009. Id. at 2. Appellants argue that this interpretation for the term "timer" ignores its plain and ordinary meaning, as would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art. Id. at 3. Appellants argue that the Board improperly adopted the Examiner's finding that "the bus interval BI is number of clock cycles programmed via 2 Appeal2014-008723 Application 13/175,677 an Arbitration Bus Interval (ABI) register, and expired at the end of the interval. Thus, it is clear that the ABI register is readable as a timer to count the predetermined period of time." Id. at 4. Appellants contend "[a]s is well known, a register (or register circuit) is essentially a memory that holds a single value." Id. Appellants proffer a definition for a "timer circuit" as "a circuit that synchronizes or activates something by means of a repetitive timing signal; specifically one that sets a circuit or device, especially a CPU, to run at a particular rate. Id. (quoting Oxforddictionaries.com). Appellants further argue "[s]imply stated, a register is not a timer." Id. at 5. We disagree. First, Appellants' argument is not commensurate in scope with the claims which do not recite "timer circuit." See In re Self, 671 F.2d 1344, 1348 (CCPA 1982) ("[A]ppellant's arguments fail from the outset because .. . they are not based on limitations appearing in the claims."); In re Hiniker Co., 150 F.3d 1362, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (citation omitted) (finding "the name of the game is the claim"). Claim 21 recites "timer," not "timer circuit," as argued. Second, a person of ordinary skill in the claimed "managing device access to a priority-based shared bus" arts is unlikely to consult the Oxford Dictionary for the definition of the claimed technical term. We find it more likely that such a worker would consult the IEEE Dictionary. Contrary to Appellants who flatly state "a register is not a timer" (Request 5), the IEEE defines a "timer" as a "register or storage location whose value is changed at regular intervals in such a manner as to measure time. Synonyms: clock register; time register. See also: watchdog timer; interval timer." IEEE 100 The Authoritative Dictionary of IEEE Standards Terms, 7th Ed., IEEE 3 Appeal2014-008723 Application 13/175,677 Press (2000), T.1184 (emphasis added). Similarly for "time register See: timer." Id. at T .1185. In view of the IEEE definition of "timer" as a "register," we are not persuaded the Examiner errs in in finding the reference "Arbitration Bus Interval (ABI) register" teaches the claimed "timer." Nor are we persuaded that we err in adopting this finding by the Examiner. We have considered Appellants' arguments raised in the Request, but Appellants have not persuaded us that the original decision was in error. Based on the record before us now and in the original appeal, we are still of the view that the rejection of Claims 21, 22, 25, 27, and 28, under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a), should be sustained. We have granted the Request to the extent that we have reconsidered our Decision of May 25, 2016, but we deny the request with respect to making any changes therein. 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). REHEARING DENIED 4 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation