Ex Parte Salamon et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardFeb 26, 201814483718 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 26, 2018) Copy Citation United States Patent and Trademark Office 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. 14/483,718 09/11/2014 Aviv Salamon Va_idle3 9326 16759 7590 Active Knowledge Ltd. P.O. Box 294 Kiryat Tivon, 36011 ISRAEL EXAMINER ULYSSE, JAEL M ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2477 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 02/28/2018 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): ari@ activekn.com gil@ activekn.com taltiber@ gmail.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte AVIV SALAMON and EYRAN LIDA Appeal 2017-008021 Application 14/483,718 Technology Center 2400 Before ELENI MANTIS MERCADER, NORMAN H. BEAMER, and ADAM J. PYONIN, Administrative Patent Judges. MANTIS MERCADER, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s Final Rejection of claims 1—20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. 1 Appellants identify Valens Semiconductor Ltd., as the real party in interest (App. Br. 3). Appeal 2017-008021 Application 14/483,718 THE INVENTION Appellants’ claimed invention is directed to “indicating a configuration change of a communication link by replacing certain idle code words with bitwise complement code words” (Abstract). Independent claim 1, reproduced below, is representative of the subject matter on appeal: 1. A communication link configured to indicate a configuration change by replacing certain idle code words with bitwise complement code words, comprising: a transmitter comprising an encoder configured to encode a first frame, a basic idle sequence, and a second frame, wherein the first frame, the basic idle sequence, and the second frame comprise code words; the transmitter further comprises an idle sequence modifier configured to produce an idle sequence by replacing certain M code words of the basic idle sequence with M bitwise complement code words; wherein each bitwise complement code word appears in the basic idle sequence; and a receiver configured to receive the first frame, the idle sequence, and the second frame; wherein the basic idle sequence is known to the receiver; and the receiver is further configured to identify a change in configuration of the communication link based on a difference between the idle sequence and the basic idle sequence. REFERENCES The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on appeal is the following: 2 Appeal 2017-008021 Application 14/483,718 Lund US 2004/0156317 A1 Aug. 12, 2004 Zimmerman US 2009/0125735 A1 May 14, 2009 REJECTION The Examiner made the following rejection: Claims 1—20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Zimmerman, in view of Lund. Final Act. 6. ISSUE The pivotal issue is whether the Examiner erred in finding that the combination of Zimmerman and Lund teaches or suggests the transmitter further comprises an idle sequence modifier configured to produce an idle sequence by replacing certain M code words of the basic idle sequence with M bitwise complement code words; wherein each bitwise complement code word appears in the basic idle sequence, as recited in independent claim 1, and similarly recited in independent claims 9 and 17. ANALYSIS We adopt the Examiner’s findings in the Answer and Final Office Action and we add the following primarily for emphasis. We note that if Appellants failed to present arguments on a particular rejection, we will not unilaterally review those uncontested aspects of the rejection. See Ex parte Frye, 94 USPQ2d 1072, 1075 (BPAI 2010) (precedential); Hyatt v. Dudas, 3 Appeal 2017-008021 Application 14/483,718 551 F.3d 1307, 1313—14 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (the Board may treat arguments Appellants failed to make for a given ground of rejection as waived). Appellants argue Examiner error because Lund “refer[s] to data packets, which are not equivalent to idle words” (App. Br. 9 (emphasis omitted)) and “[i]dle packets include code words that are known to the receiver,” whereas “[d]ata packets include code words that are unknown to the receiver” (App. Br. 10—11) (emphasis omitted). Appellants contend that Lund’s description of “changing words in data packets (i.e. unknown[] symbols) [is] irrelevant and not equivalent to changing words in idle packets (i.e. known symbols)” (App. Br. 11) (emphasis omitted). We are not persuaded by Appellants’ arguments. The Examiner finds, and we agree, that Lund’s encoding process is applied to a “word” that “may be a data word, control word or an idle word corresponding to a data packet, a control packet and an idle packet, respectively and may appear at any or multiple positions in the data packet” (Ans. 4, quoting Lund 124), and Lund further teaches that “[t]he enhanced encoding method employed by the encoder 300 may switch, reverse or change at least one of the three encoded data words E2, E3, E4 to the opposite running disparity” (Ans. 4, quoting Lund 134). The Examiner additionally finds, and we agree, that one skilled in the art can use the encoder of Lund that has a functionality of replacing (change), switching and reversing words i.e. coded words, idle words, and symbols and the indication that the idle frame/sequence includes code words with bits or bitwise code word as motivated by to control running disparity with the controller/processor of Zimmerman that monitors idle symbols and the indication that the sync or idle frame may be supplemented or replaced with a restart code frame 4 Appeal 2017-008021 Application 14/483,718 (Ans. 12; see Ans. 7—12, citing, inter alia, Lund 10, 24, 51 and Zimmerman 147). Here, the Examiner’s articulated reasoning quoted above—combining Lund’s encoder to switch and reverse idle words with Zimmerman’s monitoring of idle frames—provides a rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness. See Ans. 12; KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007). Appellants do not address and challenge this finding in the Reply Brief (see Reply Br. 2—3). Appellants’ contention regarding the differences between idle packets and data packets is unsupported attorney argument and is non-persuasive given that Lund specifically teaches its encoding method is applicable to idle packets. See, e.g., In re Geisler, 116 L.3d 1465, 1470 (Led. Cir. 1997) (attorney arguments or conclusory statements are insufficient to rebut a prima facie case). Thus, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of independent claim 1 and independent claims 9 and 17 not argued separately with particularity (see App. Br. 11), and dependent claims 2—8, 10—16, and 18—20 not argued separately (see App. Br. 8—11). CONCLUSION The Examiner did not err in finding that the combination of Zimmerman and Lund teaches or suggests the transmitter further comprises an idle sequence modifier configured to produce an idle sequence by replacing certain M code words of the basic idle sequence with M bitwise complement code words; wherein each bitwise complement code word appears in the basic idle sequence, 5 Appeal 2017-008021 Application 14/483,718 as recited in independent claim 1, and similarly recited in independent claims 9 and 17. DECISION The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1—20 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)(l)(iv). AFFIRMED 6 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation