Ex Parte Rock et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 23, 2016

13471195 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 23, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/471,195 05/14/2012
39933 7590 09/27/2016
MICROSEMI CORPORATION
Att: Janet Drakes - Records Manager
3870 North First Street
San Jose, CA 95134
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Jason C. Rock
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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
VIT-07 4-USC 1 5419
EXAMINER
LEVITAN, DMITRY
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2461
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/27/2016 ELECTRONIC
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.
Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the
following e-mail address( es):
Skahn@microsemi.com
gail.casselman@microsemi.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte JASON C. ROCK and JAMES D. BARNETTE
Appeal2015-005971
Application 13/471,195 1
Technology Center 2400
Before CAROLYN D. THOMAS, KEVIN C. TROCK, and
MICHAEL M. BARRY, Administrative Patent Judges.
TROCK, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Introduction
Appellants seek review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
Final Rejection of claims 1 and 3-10.2 We have jurisdiction under 35
U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
1 Appellants indicate the Real Party in Interest is Vitesse Semiconductor
Corporation. App. Br. 1.
2 Claims 2 and 11-14 have been cancelled. App. Br. 1.
Appeal2015-005971
Application 13/471,195
Invention
The claimed invention relates to a system and method for squelching a
recovered clock in an Ethernet network. Abstract.
Exemplary Claim
Exemplary claim 1 is reproduced below with disputed limitations
emphasized:
1. A method for squelching a clock signal in an Ethernet
physical layer (PHY) circuit of an Ethernet switch, the Ethernet switch
configured to route data from a first port to a second port and including
a switch coupled to each of the ports by at least the PHY circuit and a
media access controller (MAC) circuit, the first port and the second port
each configured for coupling to a transmission medium connected to
computer systems, the PHY circuit configured to receive data from and
transmit data to a communication medium, and the clock signal being
a clock signal provided to the MAC circuit, the method comprising:
receiving information via the communication medium;
recovering a clock signal based on the information; and
squelching the recovered clock signal based on a descrambler
status signal, a remote receiver status signal and a link status signal.
Rejections
Claims 1and3-10 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being
unpatentable over IEEE Standard 802.3 and Castellano et al. (US 7,668,108
B2; Feb. 23, 2010).
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner's rejections and the evidence of
record in light of Appellants' arguments that the Examiner has erred. We
disagree with Appellants' arguments and conclusions. We adopt as our own,
2
Appeal2015-005971
Application 13/471,195
( 1) the findings and reasons set forth by the Examiner in the Office Action
from which this appeal is taken and (2) the findings and reasons set forth in
the Examiner's Answer. We concur with the conclusions reached by the
Examiner and further highlight specific findings and argument for emphasis
as follows.
Independent Claims 1 and 9
Appellants contend the Examiner erred in rejecting independent claims
1 and 9 because the combination of IEEE 802.3 and Castellano fails to teach
or suggest "squelching the recovered clock signal based on a descrambler
status signal, a remote receiver status signal and a link status signal," as
recited in claim 1 and similarly recited in claim 9. App. Br. 3-14; Reply Br.
4--10. Appellants argue the PHY transmission discussed in IEEE 802.3 is
not disabled when switching to the SEND IDLE state, and therefore, the
recovered click signal is not squelched. App. Br. 6-8; Reply Br. 4--7.
Appellants also argue that IEEE 802.3 does not teach that the SENn rnLE
state can be entered, and therefore that the recovered clock signal cannot be
squelched, based on a descrambler status signal and a link status signal.
App. Br. 8-10. Appellants further argue that Castellano does not teach that
its communication modules can squelch a recovered clock signal based on a
descrambler circuit, a remote receiver status signal and a link signal. App.
Br. 10-11; Reply Br. 8.
The Examiner finds, however, and we agree, IEEE 802.3 teaches two
different modes, SEND IDLE and SEND IDLE OR DAT A, wherein upon
detection of the unsatisfactory operation of the remote PHY, mode SEND
IDLE is asserted in the local PHY where no transmission takes place, and
therefore the recovered clock signal is squelched, and on restoration of the
3
Appeal2015-005971
Application 13/471,195
remote PHY operation, the mode is switched to the normal operation SEND
IDLE OR DAT A, wherein normal transmission resumes. Ans. 6; Final Act.
6 (citing IEEE 802.3 Section 3, Figs. 36-10, 40-15, and 40-16; pp. 65----67;
186-88). Appellants' argument that PHY transmission is not disabled in the
SEND IDLE state is unpersuasive because the definition Appellants point to
in IEEE 802.3 is for IDLE, not SEND IDLE. App. Br. 7; IEEE 802.3 p.
176. Moreover, the IDLE definition identified by Appellants only indicates
that the sequence of vectors are "generated in idle mode" and there is no
indication that transmission of the IDLE symbols is performed as Appellants
argue. Reply Br. 5.
Appellants' argument that IEEE 802.3 and Castellano do not teach or
suggest squelching a recovered clock signal based on a descrambler status
signal and a link signal is also unpersuasive, because the Examiner relies on
the combination of IEEE 802.3 and Castellano to teach these limitations.
Final Act. 6. IEEE 802.3 teaches squelching the recovered clock signal
based on a link signal, relevant to which it describes the operation of the
Link Monitor function, which causes the physical medium attachment
(PMA) clients to suspend normal operation when it determines a failure of
the underlying receive channel. Final Act. 6 (citing IEEE 802.3, p. 187; Fig.
40-16). One of ordinary skill in the art would understand that suspending
normal operation means that a recovered clock signal would not be
transmitted. Castellano teaches squelching of the recovered clock signal
based on a descrambler status signal, whereby "[i]f the SNR [signal to noise
ratio] is low and the descrambler circuit can no longer decode the received
signals, the signal processing logic sets the local receiver status signal to
indicate that data can no longer be sent reliably over the network channel."
4
Appeal2015-005971
Application 13/471,195
Final Act. 6 (citing Castellano, col. 4, 11. 5-12).
Accordingly, we are not persuaded by Appellants' arguments that the
Examiner erred in finding the combination of IEEE 802.3 and Castellano
teaches or suggests "squelching the recovered clock signal based on a
descrambler status signal, a remote receiver status signal and a link status
signal," as recited in independent claim 1, and similarly recited in
independent claim 9. Therefore, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of
claims 1 and 9 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
Claims 3-8 and 10
Appellants have not presented separate, substantive arguments with
respect to claims 3-8, and 10. See App. Br. 3-14. We, therefore, are not
persuaded that the Examiner erred in rejecting these claims. See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(l)(iv); In re Lovin, 652 F.3d 1349, 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2011) ("We
conclude that the Board has reasonably interpreted Rule 41.37 to require
applicants to articulate more substantive arguments if they wish for
individual claims to be treated separately."). Accordingly, we sustain the
Examiner's rejection of these claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
DECISION
We AFFIRM the Examiner's rejections of claims 1 and 3-10.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED
5