Ex Parte Karlquist

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Apr 22, 2008

10412374 (B.P.A.I. Apr. 22, 2008)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte RICHARD K. KARLQUIST
____________

Appeal 2007-3553
Application 10/412,374
Technology Center 2600
____________

Decided: April 22, 2008
____________

Before LEE E. BARRETT, LANCE LEONARD BARRY, and JOHN A.
JEFFERY, Administrative Patent Judges.

JEFFERY, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 1-23. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We
affirm.

Appeal 2007-3553
Application 10/412,374

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant invented a system and method for recovering a clock from
optical non-return-to-zero (NRZ) data. Specifically, the system includes a
resistor that draws current when a photodiode is illuminated and a rectifier
that generates a signal with a spectral component at the clock frequency.
The signal is filtered to recover the clock associated with the NRZ data.
Such a system and method determine the performance of the optical system
more precisely and exhibits superior performance at higher frequencies.1
Claim 1 is illustrative:
1. A system for recovering a clock from optical non-return-to-
zero (NRZ) data, comprising:

a first photodetector that receives said optical NRZ data;

a second photodetector that receives a delayed version of said
optical NRZ data, wherein said first photodetector and said second
photodetector are connected in series;

a resistor, connected to a node between said first photodetector
and said second photodetector, that draws current when only one of
said first photodetector and said second photodetector is illuminated;
and

a splitting structure that separates positive pulses from negative
pulses when said resistor draws current.

1 See generally Spec. ¶ 6, 14, and 16.
2
Appeal 2007-3553
Application 10/412,374

The Examiner relies on the following prior art references to show
unpatentability:
Fala US 2003/0056157 A1 Mar. 20, 2003

Chow US 6,574,022 B2 June 3, 2003
(filed Mar. 19, 2001)

The Examiner’s rejection is as follows:
Claims 1-23 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Chow and Fala.
Rather than repeat the arguments of Appellant or the Examiner, we
refer to the Briefs2 and the Answer3 for their respective details. In this
decision, we have considered only those arguments actually made by
Appellant. Arguments, which Appellant could have made but did not make
in the Briefs, have not been considered and are deemed to be waived. See 37
C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii).

OPINION
In rejecting claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103, it is incumbent upon the
Examiner to establish a factual basis to support the legal conclusion of
obviousness. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 1073 (Fed. Cir. 1988). In so
doing, the Examiner must make the factual determinations set forth in
Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17 (1966).

2 We refer to the Appeal Brief filed October 31, 2006, and the Reply Brief
filed March 22, 2007, throughout this opinion.
3 We refer to the Examiner’s Answer mailed January 23, 2007, throughout
this opinion.
3
Appeal 2007-3553
Application 10/412,374

Discussing the question of obviousness of a patent that claims a
combination of known elements, KSR Int’l v. Teleflex, Inc., 127 S.Ct. 1727
(2007), explains:
When a work is available in one field of endeavor, design
incentives and other market forces can prompt variations of it,
either in the same field or a different one. If a person of
ordinary skill can implement a predictable variation, § 103
likely bars its patentability. For the same reason, if a technique
has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary
skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar
devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious unless
its actual application is beyond his or her skill. Sakraida [v. AG
Pro, Inc., 425 U.S. 273 (1976)] and Anderson's-Black Rock[,
Inc. v. Pavement Salvage Co., 396 U.S. 57 (1969)] are
illustrative—a court must ask whether the improvement is more
than the predictable use of prior art elements according to their
established functions.
KSR, 127 S.Ct. at 1740. If the claimed subject matter cannot be fairly
characterized as involving the simple substitution of one known element for
another or the mere application of a known technique to a piece of prior art
ready for the improvement, a holding of obviousness can be based on a
showing that “there was an apparent reason to combine the known elements
in the fashion claimed.” Id. at 1740-41. Such a showing requires “some
articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal
conclusion of obviousness. . . . [H]owever, the analysis need not seek out
precise teachings directed to the specific subject matter of the challenged
claim, for a court can take account of the inferences and creative steps that a
person of ordinary skill in the art would employ.” Id. at 1741.
If the Examiner’s burden is met, the burden then shifts to the
Appellant to overcome the prima facie case with argument and/or evidence.
Obviousness is then determined on the basis of the evidence as a whole and
4
Appeal 2007-3553
Application 10/412,374

the relative persuasiveness of the arguments. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d
1443, 1445 (Fed. Cir. 1992).
Appellant groups the claims as follows: (1) claims 1-3, 6-8, and 10;
(2) claims 4 and 5; (3) claim 9; (4) claims 11 and 12; (5) claims 13-15, 17,
and 18; (6) claim 16; (7) claims 19 and 20; and (8) claims 21-23 (App. Br.
12-35). Each grouping will be addressed separately.

Claims 1-3, 6-8, and 10
Regarding representative claim 1,4 the Examiner's rejection
essentially finds Chow discloses an optical receiver system with every
claimed feature recited in claim 1 except for the splitting structure. The
Examiner cites Fala to teach an optical system that includes a splitting
structure for extracting the clock signal from the NRZ data and finds that the
extraction of a clock is necessary for data recovery. Based on this finding
and teaching, the Examiner concludes that one of ordinary skill in the art at
the time of the invention would have been motivated to combine the
extraction method of Fala with the optical receiver of Chow in order to
obtain the clock signal for the NRZ data (Ans. 3).
Appellant has not challenged the Examiner’s factual findings related
to Chow and Fala or pointed out a perceived difference between the
references and the claimed invention (App. Br. 12-15).5 Rather, Appellant

4 Appellant argues claims 1-3, 6-8, and 10 as a group because Appellant
indicate that claims 2, 3, 6-8, and 10 stand or fall with claim 1 (App. Br. 16,
20, and 21). Accordingly, we select claim 1 as representative. See 37
C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii).
5 We note that Chow discloses the photodetectors are connected in parallel
and not in series as claimed. Appellant, however, has not argued this
5
Appeal 2007-3553
Application 10/412,374

argues that the Examiner has not provided a teaching or suggestion in the
prior art for combining Chow and Fala as proposed (App. Br. 12).
Specifically, Appellant argues that the following statement made in the
rejection is conclusory and unsubstantiated by the prior art:
[o]ne of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to
combine the teaching of Fala et al. with the optical receiver of Chow
et al. because the method of Fala et al. extracts a usable clock signal
for high speed NRZ data.

(App. Br. 13) (quoting Final Rejection, page 2) (emphasis added in original).
According to Appellant, the Examiner has relied on his opinion or hindsight
to formulate a prima facie case of obviousness rather than showing that the
motivation to combine comes from the references or that the knowledge of
extracting a clock signal from NRZ data was generally available to one of
ordinary skill in the art (App. Br. 14).
The issue before us, then, is whether Fala provides a rationale to
combine its teachings related to the splitting structure with the Chow device.
For the following reasons, we find it does.
Chow discloses an optical signal receiver or system for converting
optical NRZ signals into electrical signals (Chow, col. 3, ll. 7-17 and col. 8,
ll. 25-27). The system includes a first photodetector 24 that receives the
optical NRZ data and a second photodetector 26 that receives a delayed
version of the data (Chow, col. 4, ll. 14-25; Fig. 1). Chow also discloses a
resistor 40 connected to a node between the first photodetector and the
difference (App. Br. 12-15). Nevertheless, we do not find a patentable
distinction between connecting the detectors in series or in parallel because
one skilled in the art would have sufficient knowledge to arrange the
detectors either way to achieve the same results.
6
Appeal 2007-3553
Application 10/412,374

second photodetector (Chow, col. 6, ll. 45-62; Fig. 2). Lastly, Chow
discusses that the optical receiver may be integrated with other electronics
for further signal processing (Chow, col. 2, ll. 48-51 and col. 4, ll. 28-31).
Fala discloses a method for recovering NRZ data from an optical
system and for testing the integrity of an optical network (Fala, ¶¶ 11, 12,
17, and 19). Fala teaches that NRZ data streams do not include a clock and
thus provides a technique to recover the clock and the NRZ data (Fala, ¶¶
11, 17, and 19). Fala’s system uses a splitting structure (810) to extract the
clock of the NRZ data (Fala, ¶¶ 78, and 79; Figs. 8a-b). Once the clock has
been extracted, data can be recovered and network performance tests can be
performed (Fala, ¶¶ 13, 14, 17, 19, and 36-38). Fala also discloses that it is
known to convert optical data first into electrical signals before performing
other processing (Fala, ¶ 36).
In our view, the collective teachings of Chow and Fala provide a
rationale for combining known elements in the fashion recited in claim 1.
Chow discloses a known system that receives high-frequency or high-speed
optical NRZ data signals and converts them to electrical signals (Chow, col.
2, ll. 41-45, col. 3, ll. 7-17, col. 8, ll. 25-27, and col. 11, ll. 25-28). Chow
further discusses that the optical receiver has a need to be integrated with
other electronics for further signal processing (Chow, col. 2, ll. 48-51 and
col. 4, ll. 28-31). This discussion explicitly teaches to one of ordinary skill
in the art that the receiver will be connected to other electronics in order to
perform additional signal processing.
Fala teaches that other signal processing performed on high speed
NRZ data is known to those skilled in the art. The signal processing
includes the splitter structure or the necessary circuitry to extract a clock
7
Appeal 2007-3553
Application 10/412,374

from NRZ data in order to recover the data and perform tests on the integrity
of the network (Fala, ¶¶ 13-14, 17, 19, 36-38, and 77-80; Figs. 8a-b). Fala
also teaches that optical data streams typically need to be converted to
electrical signals prior to further processing (Fala, ¶ 36). These discussions
would have reasonably suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art that the
splitter structure of Fala would improve the Chow system by integrating the
electronics to perform further and necessary signal processing on the
incoming high speed optical NRZ data. When considering the collective
teachings and suggestions from Chow and Fala, we find that one of ordinary
skill in the art would have recognized the known technique of extracting a
clock from NRZ data would improve Chow’s system in a similar manner,
such that the NRZ data can be recovered and integrity tests can be
performed. This combination, in our view, “‘simply arranges old elements
with each performing the same function it had been known to perform’ and
yields no more than one would expect from such an arrangement.” KSR,
127 S. Ct. at 1740 (quoting Sakraida, 425 U.S. at 282).
Appellant has argued that the Examiner’s statements to combine the
references are conclusory and rely solely on hindsight (App. Br. 14-15).
We, however, find the cited references reasonably support the combination
presented in the rejection. As stated above, Chow discloses the conversion
of high speed NRZ optical data into electrical signals and indicates that the
system may need to be integrated with other electronics for additional signal
processing (Chow, col. 2, ll. 48-58 and col. 4, ll. 27-30). The rejection
points out that the “[d]etermination of [a] clock is necessary for data
recovery” (Ans. 3), and Fala supports this finding that clock extraction is
necessary when recovering NRZ data (Fala, ¶¶ 17 and 19). Since Chow also
8
Appeal 2007-3553
Application 10/412,374

receives high speed NRZ optical data input signals, one skilled in the art
would recognize that the Chow system will also need to extract a clock
signal for data recovery. Fala, in turn, teaches a known technique to extract
the clock and recover the high speed NRZ data (Fala, ¶¶ 13-14, 17, 19, and
77-80; Figs. 8a-b). Thus, we find that there is ample evidence in Chow and
Fala to support the combination as proposed in the rejection of claim 1, and
that the Examiner has therefore properly established a prima facie case of
obviousness.
Appellant argues that neither Chow, Fala, nor Nakai6 disclose a
system for recovering a clock from optical data that includes the use of
photodetectors, a resistor, and a splitting structure that separates positive
pulses from negative pulses when the resistor draws current (Reply Br. 2).
However, apart from merely asserting that these limitations are not found in
the cited prior art, Appellant does not specifically address the Examiner’s
specific positions articulated in the Answer or explain why these positions
are deficient. Merely pointing out what a claim recites is not considered an
argument for separate patentability of the claim. 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(1)(vii). In any event, such conclusory statements fall well short
of rebutting the Examiner’s prima facie case of obviousness – a position that
we find reasonable.

6 Although the Examiner cites an additional reference, Nakai (U.S.
5,589,683)) to show the clock recovery feature (Ans. 6), this reference was
not relied upon in the rejection and is not, therefore, before us. See In re
Hoch, 428 F.2d 1341, 1342, n.3 (CCPA 1970) (“Where a reference is relied
on to support a rejection, whether or not in a ‘minor capacity,’ there would
appear to be no excuse for not positively including the reference in the
statement of the rejection.”).
9
Appeal 2007-3553
Application 10/412,374

For the above reasons, Appellant has not shown error in the
obviousness rejection of claim 1 based on the collective teachings of Chow
and Fala. Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of claim 1 and claims 2, 3,
6-8, and 10 which fall with claim 1.

Claims 4 and 5
Representative claim 47 further recites an additional splitter for
splitting the optical NRZ data into two versions and a delayed element for
delaying one version by one-half of a unit interval.
Appellant argues that the Examiner has not shown the references of
record provide a teaching to include a delay element for delaying the second
version of a split NRZ data signal by one-half of a unit interval (App. Br. 17-
19). Appellant states that the delay element that delays a second version of
the NRZ data signal by one-half of a unit interval “is not a matter within the
knowledge of a person of ordinary skill in the art” (App. Br. 18; emphasis in
original). Appellant also contends that there is no evidence to support that
one skilled in the art at the time of the invention would have modified Chow
to include a delayed element (Id.). We disagree.
Chow discloses a splitter that includes two versions of the NRZ
optical signal, a second version being delayed by the first version (Chow,
col. 4, ll. 16-20). Although Chow does not disclose any specific unit interval
of the delay, Chow nonetheless explicitly teaches varying the length or
interval of the delay depending on the strength of the signal to simplify the
receiver circuit design and reduce costs (Chow, col. 10, ll. 25-50).

7 Appellant argues claims 4 and 5 as a group (App. Br. 19). Accordingly, we
select claim 4 as representative. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii).
10
Appeal 2007-3553
Application 10/412,374

Additionally, Chow discloses variations on the delay between the first and
second version of the optical signal (Chow, col. 7, l. 48 – col. 8, l. 9; Figs.
5A-C). As the U.S. Supreme Court has noted with respect to obviousness
determinations, “the analysis need not seek out precise teachings directed to
the specific subject matter of the challenged claim, for a court can take
account of the inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in
the art would employ.” KSR, 127 S. Ct. at 1741. Thus, depending on a
given signal strength, one skilled in the art would have recognized that
adjusting the delay of the second version by a given unit interval, including
one-half unit interval, would have yielded a predictable result and improved
the Chow system by simplifying the circuit design and reducing costs.
Further, Appellant admits that a splitter having an element that delays
a version of the NRZ data by one-half of a unit interval was commonly
known by those skilled in the art (Spec. ¶ 5; Fig. 2). Appellant also notes
that this system is used to extract a clock that performs tests on the integrity
of the system (Spec. ¶ 5). This technique, however, is commensurate with
Fala’s method of extracting a clock in order to perform integrity tests along
with recovering data (Fala, ¶¶ 17, 19, and 38). As another example and as
the Examiner points out, Figure 5C of Fala shows the delay to be roughly
one-half of a unit interval or one bit time (Ans. 7). One skilled in the art
would have therefore recognized these teachings would improve the delay
element in Chow by assisting in properly extracting a clock that can recover
data and perform integrity tests.
Appellant also argues that the teachings in Chow are irrelevant
because the delayed element in claim 4 “was not determined based on signal
strength” (Reply Br. 3) (emphasis removed). However, in the context of an
11
Appeal 2007-3553
Application 10/412,374

obviousness rejection, the references need not suggest the same advantage or
result discovered by Appellant. See KSR, 127 S.Ct. at 1742; see also In re
Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 987 (Fed. Cir. 2006). Thus, regardless of the fact that
the period of delay may have been chosen by Appellant for reasons other
than those indicated by Chow, “any need or problem known in the field of
endeavor at the time of invention and addressed by the patent can provide a
reason for combining the elements in the manner claimed.” KSR, 127 S. Ct.
at 1742. For the reasons stated previously, we find that Chow’s teachings
are relevant and reasonably combinable with Fala in the manner indicated.
For the above reasons, we affirm the rejection of claim 4 and claim 5
which falls with claim 4.

Claim 9
Claim 9 further recites the splitting structure having two photodiodes
coupled to the resistor and connected as series rectifiers. The Examiner
found that Fala teaches a rectifier connected as a “series/shunt structure”
(Ans. 4). The Examiner also characterizes a previous discussion8 of
Appellant as an implicit admission that the structure of series and shunt
rectifiers are minor variations well known by those skilled in the art (Ans.
4).
Appellant does not challenge the Examiner’s findings that Fala
teaches the recited features in claim 9. In fact, Appellant admits that Fala

8 The Examiner’s Answer refers to “page 6 of [the] instant amendment”
(Ans. 4). No amendment was filed with the Appeal Brief. We assume for
purposes of this decision that Examiner is referring to the discussion under
the Objection to Drawings Under 37 C.F.R. § 1.83(a) section of the May 15,
2006, Amendment.
12
Appeal 2007-3553
Application 10/412,374

teaches a series structure consisting of photodiodes (Reply Br. 4). Rather,
Appellant (1) argues that there is no suggestion in Chow or Fala to combine
their teachings as proposed, and (2) denies that the referenced discussion in
the May 15, 2006, Amendment was an admission (App. Br. 22-23).
Appellant also disputes that Fala teaches a splitting structure that includes
diodes and a resistor (Reply Br. 4).
Our previous discussions regarding the combinability of Fala and
Chow apply equally to this argument, and we, therefore, incorporate that
discussion by reference. Regarding Appellant’s alleged admission, we agree
that the statement in the Amendment is not an admission that one skilled in
the art would connect the photodiodes to the resistor as series rectifiers in the
manner recited in claim 9. However, Fala provides an explicit teaching of a
series/shunt structure9 -- a fact that Appellant readily admits (Reply Br. 4).
We also find that claim 9 does not require the splitting structure
include a photodiodes and a resistor as Appellant argues. Rather, claim 9
depends on claim 7, which recites the two diodes of the splitting structure
are coupled to the resistor, and claim 7 depends on claim 1, which recites the
resistor is connected between two photodetectors. As discussed previously,
Chow, not Fala, discloses the feature of the resistor connected between the
two photodetectors, and we incorporate this discussion by reference.
Further, when Chow and Fala are combined as proposed, the diodes of Fala
will be coupled to the resistor of Chow as recited in claim 7.
For the above reasons, we affirm the rejection of claim 9.

9 See Ans., at 8 (marked-up Figure 8B illustrating that (1) photodiodes D1
and D2 are connected in series and photodiodes D3 and D4 are connected in
series, and (2) the two series connections are connected in parallel).
13
Appeal 2007-3553
Application 10/412,374

Claims 11 and 12
Representative claim 1110 further recites a splitting structure having
two photodiodes coupled to a resistor and a 180° hybrid coupler connected
to the photodiodes that generates a signal having a spectral component at the
frequency of the clock. The Examiner found that Fala discloses two
photodiodes and a balun (828) equivalent to a 180° hybrid coupler
connected to the photodiodes (Ans. 4). Appellant does not dispute these
findings of fact. Rather, Appellant reiterates that there is no motivation to
combine Chow with Fala, and that the Examiner has relied upon an
unsupported conclusory statement for such a motivation (App. Br. 24-25).
Our previous discussion pertaining to the teachings of Chow and Fala apply
equally here, and we, therefore, incorporate that discussion by reference.
Additionally, Appellant argues that Chow, Fala, or Nakai collectively
or individually fail to teach a system for recovering a clock from optical data
that includes photodetectors, a resistor, and a splitting structure (Reply Br.
4). Apart from merely asserting that these limitations are not found in the
references or the combination, Appellant does not specifically address the
Examiner’s specific positions articulated in the Answer or explain why these
positions are deficient. Merely pointing out what a claim recites is not
considered an argument for separate patentability of the claim. 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(1)(vii). In any event, such conclusory statements fall well short
of rebutting the Examiner’s prima facie case of obviousness – a position that
we find reasonable.

10 Appellant argues claims 11 and 12 as a group (App. Br. 25). Accordingly,
we select claim 11 as representative. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii).
14
Appeal 2007-3553
Application 10/412,374

For the above reasons, we affirm the rejection of claim 11 and claim
12 which falls with claim 11.

Claims 13-15, 17 and 18
Representative independent claim 1311 recites the same structure as
claim 1 but is a method claim that includes the steps for recovering a clock
from optical NRZ data. The Examiner relies on the same discussion as that
pertaining to claim 1 to establish a prima facie case of obviousness (Ans. 3).
Appellant repeats the previous arguments relating to Chow, Fala, and the
combination (Ans. 26-28). Accordingly, our previous discussion with
respect to claim 1 applies equally here, and we incorporate that discussion
by reference. Additionally, Appellant repeats the argument relating to
Chow, Fala, and Nakai failing to disclose various limitations of the claims
(Reply Br. 4). Therefore, our previous discussion with respect to the mere
assertion that the limitations are not found in the references or the
combination applies equally here, and we incorporate that discussion by
reference.
For similar reasons, we will sustain the rejection of claim 13 and
claims 14, 15, 17, and 18 which fall with claim 13.

Claim 16
Claim 16 further recites the step of delaying the second version of the
NRZ data by one-half of a unit interval. The Examiner relies on the same

11 Appellant argues claims 13-15, 17, and 18 as a group (App. Br. 28 and
30). Accordingly, we select independent claim 13 as representative. See 37
C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii).
15
Appeal 2007-3553
Application 10/412,374

discussion as that pertaining to claim 4 to teach these limitations (Ans. 4).
Appellant repeats the previous arguments relating to the references of record
and the failure to teach delaying the second version of the NRZ data by
precisely one-half a unit interval (App. Br. 29-30 and Reply Br. 4-5). Our
previous discussion with respect to claim 4 therefore applies equally here
and we incorporate that discussion by reference.
For similar reasons, we will sustain the rejection of claim 16.

Claims 19 and 20
Representative claim 1912 recites the further steps of conducting
positive and negative pulses from the diodes, inverting one of the positive
and negative pulses and coupling the inverted pulses and other pulses to
generate a signal having a spectral component at the clock frequency. The
Examiner relies on the same discussion as that pertaining to claim 11 to
teach these limitations (Ans. 4). Appellant does not challenge the factual
findings with respect to Chow and Fala. Rather, Appellant reiterates the
previous arguments relating to the lack of motivation to combine Chow and
Fala (App. Br. 31-33). Additionally, Appellant repeats the argument relating
to Chow, Fala, and Nakai failing to disclose various limitations of the claims
(Reply Br. 5). Our previous discussions with respect to the combinability of
Chow and Fala and the mere assertion that the limitations are not found in
the references or the combination apply equally here, and we therefore
incorporate these discussions by reference.

12 Appellant argues claims 19 and 20 as a group (App. Br. 31-33). We
therefore select claim 19 as representative. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii).
16
Appeal 2007-3553
Application 10/412,374

For similar reasons, we will sustain the rejection of claim 19 and
claim 20, which falls with claim 19.

Claims 21-23
Representative claim 2113 recites two photodetector means for
conducting current when illuminated by optical NRZ data, a resistor means
for drawing current from a node connected between the photodetectors
means when only one of the photodetector means is illuminated, separate
rectifying means for rectifying positive and negative pulses generated on the
node when the resistor means draws current, and a coupling means for
combining outputs from the separate rectifying means.
At the outset, we note that neither the Appellant nor the Examiner
indicate whether the “means for” language found in claim 21 invokes 35
U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 6. When a claim uses “means for” language, there is a
presumption that the claim invokes 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 6. See Biomedino
L.L.C. v. Waters Techs. Corp., 490 F.3d 946, 950 (Fed. Cir. 2007). For this
reason, we find 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 6 has been invoked with respect to claim
21. As such, these limitations shall be construed to cover the corresponding
structure described in the specification and its equivalents. In re Donaldson
Co., 16 F.3d 1189, 1195 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (en banc).
The Examiner relies on the previous discussion of claim 11 to teach
these limitations (Ans. 4). Appellant does not challenge the factual findings
with respect to Chow and Fala. Rather, Appellant repeats the previous
arguments relating to the failure to provide a motivation to combine Chow

13 Appellant argues claims 21-23 as a group (App. Br. 35). We therefore
select claim 21 as representative. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii).
17
Appeal 2007-3553
Application 10/412,374

and Fala and that the Examiner has relied upon an unsupported conclusory
statement for such a motivation (Ans. 34-35). Additionally, Appellant
reiterates the argument relating to Chow, Fala, and Nakai as failing to
disclose various limitations of the claims (Reply Br. 5). Our previous
discussions with respect to the combinability of Chow and Fala and the mere
assertion that the limitations are not found in the references or the
combination apply equally here, and we therefore incorporate these
discussions by reference.
Therefore, for similar reasons, we will sustain the rejection of claim
21 and claims 22 and 23, which falls with claim 21.

DECISION
We have sustained the Examiner’s rejection with respect to all claims
on appeal. Therefore, the decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1-23 is
affirmed.
No period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this
appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv).

18
Appeal 2007-3553
Application 10/412,374

AFFIRMED

eld

KATHY MANKE
AVAGO TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED
4380 ZIEGLER ROAD
FORT COLLINS CO 80525
19