Ex Parte Lee

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 16, 2014

12020596 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 16, 2014)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
______________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
______________

Ex parte KEE-HOON LEE
______________

Appeal 2012-007161
Application 12/020,596
Technology Center 2100
______________

Before JEFFREY S. SMITH, JOHNNY A. KUMAR, and
MICHAEL J. STRAUSS, Administrative Patent Judges.

KUMAR, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the
Examiner’s final rejection of claims 1–5 and 7–20. Claim 6 has been
cancelled. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm-in-part.

Appeal 2012-007161
Application 12/020,596

2

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
An understanding of the invention can be derived from a reading of
exemplary independent claims 1 and 12, which are reproduced below:
1. A memory card comprising:
first and second communication ports;
first and second host interfaces, connected to a host
through the first and second communication ports respectively,
facilitating the communication of data between the memory
card and the host using, respectively, first and second
protocols, wherein the first protocol defines low-speed
operations and the second protocol defines high-speed
operations for the memory card;
a memory unit storing data;
a memory controller controlling memory unit operations
in accordance with a set of commands received from the host,
and generating a control signal in response to at least one
command in the set of commands indicating a high-speed
operation; and
an enable control unit enabling operation of the second
host interface in response to the control signal,
wherein the first and second communication ports are
electrically connected to the host, the at least one command is
received through the first host interface, and the second host
interface is enabled based on the at least one command received
through the first host interface.

12. A memory card comprising:
a first communication port facilitating connection
between a host and a first host interface, the first host interface
facilitating communication of data between the memory card
and a host using a first protocol;
a second communication port, connected to a second host
interface through a plurality of conductive lines, facilitating
connection between the host and the second host interface, the
Appeal 2012-007161
Application 12/020,596

3

second host interface facilitating communication of data
between the memory card and the host using a second protocol;
a memory unit storing data;
a power sensing unit, connected to a predetermined
conductive line of the plurality of conductive lines positioned
between the second communication port and the second host
interface, sensing application of a power signal to the second
host interface via the second communication port and
generating a control signal in response to the sensed power
signal; and
an enable control unit selectively enabling operation of
the second host interface in response to the control signal, when
the power signal is sensed.
Rejections
The Examiner rejected claims 1–5, 7, 9–12, 15, and 17–20 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Wyatt (US 7,409,477 B2,
Aug. 5, 2008) and Liu ’846 (US 2004/0059846 A1, Mar. 25, 2004). Ans. 4–
7.
The Examiner rejected claims 8 and 16 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Wyatt, Liu ’846, and Liu ’038 (US 6,857,038 B2,
Feb. 15, 2005). Ans. 8.
The Examiner did not provide the statutory basis or reasons in support
of the rejection of claims 13 and 14. See Ans. 4–11.

Appeal 2012-007161
Application 12/020,596

4

ANALYSIS
Claims 1–5, 7–11, 16, and 20
The Examiner rejected claims 1–5, 7–11, 16, and 20 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Wyatt and Liu ’846. Ans. 4–10. 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. The Examiner has provided a
comprehensive response to each argument presented by the Appellant on
pages 9 and 10 of the Answer. We have reviewed this response and concur
with the Examiner’s findings and conclusions as to claims 1–5, 7–11, 16,
and 20. We agree with the Examiner and adopt as our own the findings and
reasons set forth by the Examiner in the action from which this appeal is
taken (Ans. 4–8) and (2) the reasons set forth by the Examiner in the
Examiner’s Answer in response to Appellant’s Appeal Brief (Ans. 9–10) as
to clams 1–5, 7–11, 16, and 20.
In particular, the Examiner finds, and we agree:
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the
art at the time of the invention to use the economical adapter
interface of Liu in the system of Wyatt to manage the device
cost, page 1, paragraph 0009. One of ordinary skill in the art
would have been motivated to use the economical adapter
interface of Liu in the system of Wyatt to manage the device
cost, page 1, paragraph 0009.
Ans. 5.
Appellant alleges, “Because the proposed combination of Wyatt and
Liu fails to disclose the use of first and second protocols defining low-speed
and high-speed operations for communication between a host and a memory
Appeal 2012-007161
Application 12/020,596

5

card, it fails to support the rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).”
App. Br. 16–17.
The Examiner responds:
The host interfaces support a plurality of protocols, namely SD,
and USB, with SD being a slow speed interface and USB being
a relative high speed interface. Figure 3 of Liu details the two
speed modes where slow speed SD is selected in step 42 and
high speed USB bus is selected in step 50.
Ans. 10.
In other words, Liu’s protocols, namely SD and USB, correspond to
the claimed first and second protocols defining low-speed and high-speed
operations.
Accordingly, we agree with the Examiner’s finding in the Answer.
Although claims 8 and 16 appear to be addressed separately by Appellant
(App. Br. 17–18), they are in actuality conclusory statements that have little
probative value. Thus, we sustain the rejection of claims 1–5, 7–11, 16, and
20.
Claims 12–15 and 17–19
The Examiner did not expressly reject claims 12–15 and 17–19 in the
Final Rejection or the Examiner’s Answer. Instead, the Examiner groups
independent claim 12 with claims 1 and 20 in the Response to Arguments
(Ans. 11). The Examiner finds “the Examiner points to applied art of Wyatt
and Liu to reject claim 12. Claim 12 comprises all the limitation of claims 1
and 20 and thus the same rejection is applied. Therefore the Appellant’s
argument is not considered persuasive.” Ans. 11.
Appeal 2012-007161
Application 12/020,596

6

As pointed out by the Appellant in the Reply Brief, claim 12 recites
different limitations than claims 1 and 20. Reply Br. 2. In particular,
Appellant contends:
For instance, claim 12 recites a “power sensing unit,
connected to a predetermined conductive line of the plurality of
conductive lines positioned between the second communication
port and the second host interface.” Such a power sensing unit
is not recited in claims 1 or 20, and the Examiner has failed to
address this feature in any part of the rejection. Moreover, the
Examiner has failed to address the combination of the power
sensing unit with other features as recited in claims 12-19.
Reply Br. 2.
We agree with the Appellant, because the Examiner has not shown
how the combination of Wyatt and Liu ’846 are interpreted to satisfy the
power sensing unit 380 shown in Appellant’s Figure 5, nor has the Examiner
(Ans. 11) answered Appellant’s particular arguments (App. Br. 13; Reply
Br. 2). Accordingly, we will not sustain the Examiner’s rejection under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) of claims 12–15 and 17–19.
DECISION
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1–5, 7–11, 16, and 20 is affirmed.
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 12–15 and 17–19 is reversed.
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-IN-PART

msc