Ex Parte Kim

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

May 16, 2013

11372494 (P.T.A.B. May. 16, 2013)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
_____________

Ex parte DONG-HWAN KIM
_____________

Appeal 2011-03138
Application 11/372,494
Technology Center 2100
______________

Before JOSEPH F. RUGGIERO, ROBERT E. NAPPI, and
JUSTIN BUSCH, Administrative Patent Judges.

NAPPI, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal 2011-03138
Application 11/372,494

2

This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the rejection
of claims 1, 2, 4, and 6.
We affirm.
INVENTION
The invention is directed to a transceiver and receiver using Low
Voltage Differential Signaling (LVDS) through a Universal Serial Bus
(USB) device coupled to a USB data cable. See pages 5 and 6 of
Appellant’s Specification. Claim 1 is representative of the invention and
reproduced below:
1. A portable terminal, comprising:
a USB (universal serial bus) transceiver to receive a
voltage via a USB data cable connected to a data transceiver
using an external LVDS (low voltage differential signaling),
and to transmit and receive data through a USB device coupled
with the USB data cable and the data transceiver; and
a controller to recognize a connection between the data
transceiver and the USB data cable based on the voltage
provided through the USB data cable and the USB transceiver,
and to control the data transceiver in accordance with a data
transfer rate of the USB data cable,
wherein the data transceiver comprises at least one
LVDS receiver and at least one LVDS transmitter to transmit
and receive a data between the USB transceiver and the USB
data cable at a data transfer rate equal to or faster than a
threshold rate, and further comprises a damping resistor to
transfer the data between the USB transceiver and the USB data
cable at a data transfer rate less than the threshold rate, and
wherein the controller controls the data transceiver to
switch to a first data transmission path including the at least one
LVDS receiver and the at least one LVDS transmitter if the data
transfer rate is equal to or faster than the threshold rate, and to
switch to a second data transmission path including the
damping resistor but not the at least one LVDS receiver and the
Appeal 2011-03138
Application 11/372,494

3

at least one LVDS transmitter if the data transfer rate is slower
than the threshold rate.

REJECTION AT ISSUE
The Examiner has rejected claim 1, 2, 4 and 6 under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as unpatentable over Beck (U.S.6, 611,552 B2), Pasqualini (U.S.
2003/0038823 A1) and Konz (U.S. 2003/0154316 A1). Answer 3-8.
1

ISSUES
Appellant argues on pages 7 through 12 of the Appeal Brief and 4
through 6 of the Reply Brief that the Examiner’s rejection under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 is in error.
2
These arguments present us with the issue:
a) Did the Examiner err in finding the combined references teach
selecting the LVDS receiver-transmitter data path when the data
transfer rate is equal to or faster than a threshold rate and selecting
the damping resistor data path when the data transfer rate is slower
than a threshold rate as recited in claims 1 and 4?

ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellant’s
contentions that the Examiner has erred. Further, we have reviewed the
Examiner’s response to Appellant’s arguments. We disagree with
Appellant’s conclusion that the Examiner erred in finding that the combined

1
Throughout this opinion we refer to the Examiner’s Answer mailed on
September 16, 2010.
Appeal 2011-03138
Application 11/372,494

4

references teach selecting the LVDS receiver-transmitter data path when the
data transfer rate is equal to or faster than a threshold rate and selecting the
damping resistor data path when the data transfer rate is slower than the
threshold rate. The Examiner finds that Beck teaches switching between a
high speed and lower speed transmission path based upon the data
transmission rate (125 megabits per second is the threshold the Examiner
equates to the Appellant’s claimed threshold.). Answer 4, 9. We concur
with these findings by the Examiner and note that Beck actually discusses
three transmission speeds, full and low speeds which are the standard USB
speeds and which make use of one set of transceivers and high speed which
makes use of a separate set of transceivers/receivers. See col. 2, ll. 37-43,
col. 3, ll. 20-23, 36-44. The transceivers are turned on or off (switch on or
off data path) depending upon the speed of operation.
The Examiner relies upon Pasqualini to show using LVDS for high
speed data transfer was known and it reduces noise. The Examiner relies
upon Konz to show that it was known to use a damping resistor to also
reduce noise. Answer 9. We concur with these findings by the Examiner
also. We note that Appellant’s in their Specification similarly acknowledge
that LVDS is a known standard for a high rate data transmission and that it
was known to use damping resistors in USB communication at 1.5 and 12
Mbps (which correspond to the low and full speeds discussed in Beck).
Spec. 5, ll. 6-11, Spec 8, ll. 18-19. Thus, we consider the teachings of

2
Throughout this opinion we refer to Appellant’s Appeal Brief filed on July
20, 2010 and Reply Brief filed November 15, 2010.
Appeal 2011-03138
Application 11/372,494

5

Pasqualini and Konz to be cumulative of subject matter admitted to be
known in Appellant’s Specification.
The Examiner reasons that the skilled artisan would combine these
known elements as it would reduce electromagnetic emissions. Answer 5, 9.
We concur with the Examiner and note that using the damping resistor in the
low and full speed transceiver data path of Beck and the LVDS in the high
speed data path of Beck is nothing more than using known components to
perform their known function. As pointed out by the Examiner, Beck
teaches switching on and off the transceivers based upon desired data rate,
e.g. a 125 megabits per second data rate. Accordingly, Appellant’s
arguments have not persuaded us of error in the Examiner’s rejection of
claims 1, 2, 4, and 6.

DECISION
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 2, 4, and 6 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

ELD