Ex Parte Mobley

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jun 4, 2010

11119577 (B.P.A.I. Jun. 4, 2010)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte JAMES B. MOBLEY
____________

Appeal 2010-000620
Application 11/119,577
Technology Center 2800
____________

Decided: June 4, 2010
____________

Before EDWARD C. KIMLIN, PETER F. KRATZ, and
MARK NAGUMO, Administrative Patent Judges.

KIMLIN, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

This is an appeal from the final rejection of claims 15-26. Claim 15 is
illustrative:
15. An information handling system comprising:
plural integrated circuits operable to process information;

at least one bus interfacing at least a first and second of the
plural integrated circuits, the bus operable to
Appeal 2010-000620
Application 11/119,577

2
communicate information from the first integrated circuit
to the second integrated circuit, the information
communicated as at least one signal having high or low
values, the second integrated circuit determining the
signal value as high or low by comparing the signal value
to a reference value; and

a bus signal analyzer associated with the second integrated
circuit and operable to analyze the bus signal
communicated between the first and second integrated
circuits to evaluate bus signal noise and to dynamically
adjust the reference value to compensate for the bus
signal noise.

The Examiner relies upon the following references as evidence of
obviousness:

Stillwell 5,417,388 May 23, 1995
Kan 5,438,289 Aug. 1, 1995
Sayers 6,813,486 B2 Nov. 2, 2004
Pellegrino 6,867,704 B2 Mar. 15, 2005

Appellants’ claimed invention is directed to an information handling
system comprising a bus that interfaces first and second integrated circuits.
The second integrated circuit determines the signal value as high or low by
comparing it to a reference value. Also, a bus signal analyzer is associated
with the second integrated circuit and analyzes the signal between the
circuits to evaluate bus signal noise and, accordingly, dynamically adjust the
reference value to compensate for the noise.
Appealed claims 15-17, 19-21 and 25 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Kan in view of Sayers and Stillwell.
Claim 26 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable
over the stated combination of references further in view of Pellegrino.
Appeal 2010-000620
Application 11/119,577

3
With the exception of claim 21, Appellant does not present an
argument that is reasonably specific to any particular claim on appeal.
Accordingly, with the noted exception, all the appealed claims stand or fall
together.
We have thoroughly reviewed each of Appellant’s arguments for
patentability. However, Appellant has not demonstrated that the Examiner’s
conclusion of obviousness is in error. Accordingly, we will sustain the
Examiner’s rejections.
The Examiner has factually determined that Kan discloses
transmitting a data signal from a transmitter wherein a bus interfaces the
transmitter and a second element of a plurality of circuits, and that Kan’s
second circuit (comparator) determines the signal value as high or low by
comparing it to a reference value, wherein the second circuit is associated
with a bus signal analyzer which evaluates bus signal noise and dynamically
adjusts the reference value to compensate for the bus signal noise (See Ans.,
para. bridging pp. 4-5). Citing Figure 1 of Kan, the Examiner finds that
“[t]he line that connects element 3 to element 1 is a bus that communicates
signal from a transmitter to the input ports of element 1” (Ans. 9, last para.).
The Examiner recognizes that Kan does not explicitly disclose that the
first transmitter circuit and the second comparator circuit are integrated
circuits. However, the Examiner cites Sayers as evidence for the
obviousness of using integrated circuits as transmitters, and cites Stillwell
for the obviousness of using integrated circuits as comparators.
Significantly, Appellant does not address, let alone rebut, the Examiner’s
conclusion of obviousness with respect to employing integrated circuits as
the transmitter and comparator.
Appeal 2010-000620
Application 11/119,577

4
Appellant submits that “Kan cannot anticipate Claim 15 because Kan
fails to teach, disclose or suggest all elements recited by Claim 15.” (Prin.
Br. 4, second para.). However, as pointed out by the Examiner, this
argument is not germane to the Examiner’s rejection which is under § 103,
not § 102.
Appellant also maintains that “[e]ach of the references relied upon by
the Examiner communicates with radio frequency energy that does not use a
bus” (Prin. Br. 4, second full para.). However, Appellant has not addressed
the Examiner’s finding that wires, lines or cables that transmit radio
frequency signals are collectively considered signal buses, and that the line
that connects element 3 to element 1 in Kan “is a bus that communicates
signal from a transmitter to the input ports of element 1” (Ans. 9, last para.).
Hence, Appellant has not carried the burden of demonstrating that the
Examiner’s factual finding is erroneous and that the Examiner’s conclusion
of obviousness constitutes reversible error. Appellant has not placed any
argument or evidence on record which establishes that the line connecting
elements 3 and 1 of Kan does not meet the definition of a bus.
Appellant also contends that “the circuit disclosed by Kan and
included in the Examiner’s Answer is an analog circuit and element 1 is a
comparator, not an integrated circuit” (Reply Br. 1, second para.). However,
this argument misses the thrust of the Examiner’s rejection under § 103.
Appellant has not set forth an argument which refutes the Examiner’s
position that it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art,
based on Stillwell, to use an integrated circuit for the comparator of Kan.
Appeal 2010-000620
Application 11/119,577

5
Neither Appellant’s Principal nor Reply Brief address the Examiner’s
§ 103 rejection of claim 26 over the combined teachings of Kan, Sayers,
Stillwell and Pellegrino.
As a final point, we note that Appellant bases no argument upon
objective evidence of nonobviousness, such as unexpected results.
In conclusion, based on the foregoing, the Examiner’s decision
rejecting the appealed claims 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)(v).

AFFIRMED

kmm

HAMILTON & TERRILE, LLP
P.O. BOX 203518
AUSTIN, TX 78720