Ex Parte McCall et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Sep 15, 2011

10956426 (B.P.A.I. Sep. 15, 2011)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARKOFFICE
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
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
10/956,426 09/30/2004 James A. McCall 42P19487 6881
45209 7590 09/16/2011
MISSION/BSTZ
BLAKELY SOKOLOFF TAYLOR & ZAFMAN LLP
1279 OAKMEAD PARKWAY
SUNNYVALE, CA 94085-4040
EXAMINER
JOSEPH, JAISON
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2611
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/16/2011 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
_____________

Ex parte JAMES A. MCCALL, KLAUS RUFF, DAVID SHYKIND and
SANTANU CHANDBURI
_____________

Appeal 2009-011947
Application 10/956,426
Technology Center 2600
______________

Before ROBERT E. NAPPI, DAVID M. KOHUT, and JASON V.
MORGAN, Administrative Patent Judges.

NAPPI, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the rejection
of claims 1 through 17.
We affirm-in-part.
Appeal 2009-011947
Application 10/956,426
2

INVENTION
The invention is directed a method to equalize settings in chip to chip
communications. See Specification pages 1 and 3. Claim 1 is representative
of the invention and reproduced below:
1. A method comprising:
self-determining in an initiator a value for an equalization parameter
for a channel between the initiator and a responder by determining a
round trip time for an equalization insensitive signal from the initiator
and a response equalization insensitive signal from the responder; and
setting the equalization parameter to have the value.

REFERENCE
Cecchi US 6,466,626 B1 Oct. 15, 2002
Levy US 2003/0217301 A1 Nov. 20, 2003
Cavallo US 2004/0044861 A1 Mar. 4, 2004
Kim US 2004/0184487 A1 Sep. 23, 2004

REJECTIONS AT ISSUE
The Examiner has rejected claims 1 through 7 and 10 through 12
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Cecchi. Answer 3-51.
The Examiner has rejected claims 8 and 13 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over Cecchi in view of Kim. Answer 6.
The Examiner has rejected claim 9 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Cecchi in view of Levy. Answer 6 and 7.

1 Throughout this opinion we refer to the Examiner’s Answer mailed on
March 4, 2009.
Appeal 2009-011947
Application 10/956,426
3

The Examiner has rejected claims 14 through 17 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Cecchi in view of Cavallo. Answer 7
and 8.
ISSUES
Independent claim 1
Appellants argue on pages 8 through 10 of the Brief2 that the
Examiner’s rejection of claim 1 is in error. These arguments present us with
the following issues:
a) Did the Examiner error in finding that Cecchi teaches an
equalization insensitive signal?
b) Did the Examiner error in finding that Cecchi teaches determining
an equalization parameter for a channel by determining a round
trip time as recited in claim 1?

Independent claim 10
Appellants’ arguments on pages 13 and 14 of the Brief directed to the
Examiner’s rejection of claim 10 present us with issue a) above.

Dependent claim 11
Appellants’ arguments on pages 14 and 15 of the Brief directed to the
rejection of claim 11 present us with the following issue: did the Examiner
error in finding that Cecchi teaches a look up table that provides the
equalization parameter based upon a count?

2 Throughout this opinion we refer to the Appeal Brief dated October 21,
2008 and Reply Brief dated March 31, 2009.
Appeal 2009-011947
Application 10/956,426
4

Dependent claim 13
Appellants’ arguments on pages 15 through 17 of the Brief directed to
the rejection of claim 13 present us with the following issue: did the
Examiner error in finding that the skilled artisan would modify Cecchi to
include an arithmetic counter to reduce the count value corresponding to a
responder processing time?

Independent claim 14
Appellants’ arguments on pages 18 and 19 of the Brief directed to the
Examiner’s rejection of claim 14 present us with the following issue: did the
Examiner error in finding that the skilled artisan would apply Cecchi’s
teachings to communication channels on a motherboard?

ANALYSIS
Independent claim 1
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejection in light of Appellants’
arguments that the Examiner has erred. We disagree with Appellants’
conclusion that the Examiner erred in finding that Cecchi teaches an
equalization insensitive signal. However, we concur with Appellants’
conclusion that the Examiner erred in finding that Cecchi teaches
determining an equalization parameter for a channel by determining a round
trip time as recited in claim 1.
With regard to issue a) we 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 set forth by the Examiner in the Examiner’s
Answer in response to Appellants’ Appeal Brief. We concur with the
Appeal 2009-011947
Application 10/956,426
5

conclusion reached by the Examiner. The Examiner has provided a
comprehensive response on pages 8 through 10 of the Answer, with which
we concur. We note, Appellants’ arguments, on pages 8 and 9 of the Brief,
directed to the signal not being sensitive to a time delay and line attenuation
is not supported by Appellants’ Specification. Rather, paragraph 13 of
Appellants’ Specification identifies that the EIS (equalization insensitive
signal) may be a step signal, which the Examiner has shown is taught by
Cecchi.
With regard to issue b) we disagree with the Examiner’s finding that
Cecchi’s teaching of measuring the time through cables 330 and 390 meet
the claimed measuring the round trip time. Answer 10. Claim 1 recites
determining a parameter for a channel between initiator and responder, by
determining the round trip time for a signal from the initiator and response
signal from the responder. As argued by Appellants on page 5 and 6 of the
Reply Brief, this teaching of Cecchi involves determining the parameters of
two cables. The Examiner has not shown that this is measuring the
parameters of a channel as claimed. Accordingly, the Examiner has not
shown that Cecchi teaches all of the limitations of independent claim 1 and
we will not sustain the anticipation rejection of claims 1 through 7.
Similarly, we will not sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejections of
dependent claims 8 and 9 which rely upon the disclosure of Cecchi to teach
the limitations of claim 1.

Independent claim 10
Appellants’ arguments directed to independent claim 10 present us
with the same issue a) as discussed above with respect to claim 1. As
discussed above, we do not find Appellants’ arguments directed to this issue
Appeal 2009-011947
Application 10/956,426
6

to be persuasive of error. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s
anticipation rejection of independent claim 10 and dependent claim 12.

Dependent claim 11
We disagree with Appellants’ conclusion that the Examiner erred in
finding that Cecchi teaches a look up table that provides the equalization
parameter based upon a count. Appellants argue that the coefficient
registers in Cecchi do not provide pre-emphasis coefficients based upon a
count, rather the coefficients are based upon length (which is determined
based upon count). Brief 14, Reply Brief 9. We are not persuaded by this
line of reasoning; there is no limitation in claim 11 which precludes the
interim step of using the count to determine length and then using length to
determine parameters. Thus, we are not persuaded of error in the
Examiner’s rejection of claim 11. Accordingly we sustain the Examiner’s
anticipation rejection of claim 11.

Dependent claim 13
We disagree with Appellants’ conclusion that the Examiner erred in
finding that the skilled artisan would modify Cecchi to include an arithmetic
counter to reduce the count value corresponding to a responder processing
time. Appellants reason that such a modification would not be obvious as
Cecchi does not disclose calculating round trip time, but instead calculates
two one-way trips which does not include responder processor time. Reply
Brief 10. We disagree with Appellants’ interpretation of Cecchi, and further
note that dependent claim 13 is broad enough to include two one-way trips
(on each link). Cecchi states that the time the signal transits the cables,
connectors, drivers and receivers is used to determine cable attenuation.
Appeal 2009-011947
Application 10/956,426
7

Col. 6, ll. 45-50. Thus, the premise upon which Appellants’ argument is
based is flawed, and we consider there to be ample evidence to support the
Examiner’s finding that the skilled artisan would subtract out processing
time to more accurately calculate the equalization parameter. Accordingly,
we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of dependent claim 13.

Independent claim 14
We concur with Appellants’ conclusion that the Examiner erred in
finding that the skilled artisan would apply Cecchi’s teachings to
communication channels on a motherboard. Appellants argue that Cecchi’s
teachings are directed to communication over cables, such as coaxial cables,
and as such are inapplicable to communication on the motherboard level.
Brief 19. In response, the Examiner finds that Cavallo teaches a processor
communicating with components coupled through a motherboard. Answer
15. Further, the Examiner finds that though Cavallo does not teach
determining equalization parameters for the communication channel, Cecchi
does. The Examiner finds Cecchi discusses that the invention can be used in
a system that covers a small distance and concludes that the skilled artisan
would combine the teachings to determine equalization parameters of the
communication channels on the motherboard as recited in claim 14. Answer
16. We disagree with the Examiner’s conclusion. We note that neither of
the references identify that the equalization is necessary for the
communication channels on a motherboard such as Cavallo’s motherboard.
Further, as identified by the Appellants on page 11 of the Reply Brief, the
lengths of the channels (which is the reason for the equalization) on a
motherboard are significantly shorter than would be encountered in a system
using cables as the communication medium. Thus, Appellants have
Appeal 2009-011947
Application 10/956,426
8

persuaded us that the combination of Cecchi and Cavallo do not support an
obviousness rejection of claims 14 through 17.
SUMMARY
Appellants’ arguments have persuaded us of error in the Examiner’s
rejections of claims 1 through 9 and 14 through 18. However, Appellants
arguments have not persuaded us of error in the Examiner’s rejections of
claims 10 through 13.

ORDER
The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1 through 17 is affirmed
in part.
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

tj