Ex Parte Sharma

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Dec 8, 2009

10300443 (B.P.A.I. Dec. 8, 2009)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
__________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
__________

Ex parte DEBENDRA DAS SHARMA
__________

Appeal 2009-003387
Application 10/300,443
Technology Center 2100
__________

Decided: December 8, 2009
__________

Before LANCE LEONARD BARRY, JOHN A. JEFFERY and
ST. JOHN COURTENAY III, Administrative Patent Judges.

COURTENAY, 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 1-9, 11-28, 30-43, 45, and 47-50.
Claims 10, 29, 44 and 46 have been cancelled. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.

Appeal 2009-003387
Application 10/300,443

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
THE INVENTION
Appellant’s invention relates generally to data communication
systems. More particularly, Appellant’s invention relates to networked
systems transmitting data between distributed nodes and employing error
detection techniques to determine whether transmitted data is received free
of error. (Spec. 1, ll. 6-9).

Claim 1 is illustrative:

1. A sending node comprising:

an encoder configured to receive a series of data blocks and to provide
for each data block of the series a corresponding expected cyclic redundancy
code (CRC) that is a function of at least the data block to which it
corresponds, wherein for each of at least two data blocks of the series the
corresponding expected CRC is a function of the data block to which it
corresponds and N data blocks preceding the data block to which it
corresponds, and wherein N is an integer value of at least one; and

an output block configured to transmit each data block of the series
together with its corresponding expected CRC.

PRIOR ART
Hyodo US 5,282,215 Jan. 25, 1994
Drottar US 6,446,235 B1 Sep. 3, 2002
Lo US 6,732,317 B1 May 4, 2004

Appeal 2009-003387
Application 10/300,443

3
THE REJECTIONS
1. The Examiner rejected claims 1, 2, 4-7, 9, 20, 21, 23-26, 28, 30-32,
34, 35, 38, 43, and 50 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable
over Hyodo in view of Drottar.
2. The Examiner rejected claims 11, 12, 14-17, 19, 36, 39, 40, 42, 45,
47, and 49 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over
Hyodo.
3. The Examiner rejected claims 3, 8, 13, 18, 22, 27, 33, 37, 41, and 48
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Hyodo and Lo.

CLAIM GROUPING
For each of the aforementioned first and second stated rejections,
Appellant reiterates the same argued limitation for each independent claim
and does not provide separate arguments for the dependent claims. (App. Br.
10-14). Regarding the third stated rejection, we note that dependent claims
3, 8, 13, 18, 22, 27, 33, 37, 41, and 48 are not separately argued. (App. Br.
15). Therefore, we select independent claim 1 as being representative of all
claims on appeal. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii).

APPELLANT’S CONTENTIONS
Appellant contends that based on the Examiner’s characterization,
Hyodo teaches calculating a CRC for each data block of a series of data
blocks (e.g., α1, α2, . . .αp) that is a function of the data block and all
preceding data blocks of the series of data blocks. (App. Br. 12).

Appeal 2009-003387
Application 10/300,443

4
In light of the above, Appellant contends that Hyodo does not teach or
suggest providing for each of at least two data blocks of a series a
corresponding expected CRC that is a function of the data block to which it
corresponds and N data blocks preceding the data block to which it
corresponds, wherein N is an integer value of at least one, as recited in claim
1. (App. Br. 12-13) (Underline in original).

EXAMINER’S FINDINGS
The Examiner maintains that Appellant’s claim language does not
exclude other data blocks from being used in the CRC calculation, as argued
by Appellant. As such, the Examiner finds Hyodo teaches or suggests the
limitation as claimed. (Ans. 28)

ISSUE
Has Appellant shown the Examiner erred in finding that
the cited references teach or would have suggested providing
for each of at least two data blocks of a series a corresponding
expected CRC that is a function of the data block to which it
corresponds and N data blocks preceding the data block to
which it corresponds, wherein N is an integer value of at least
one? (See claim 1) (Underline added).

Appeal 2009-003387
Application 10/300,443

5
PRINCIPLES OF LAW
CLAIM INTERPRETATION
"[T]he PTO gives claims their 'broadest reasonable interpretation.'"
In re Bigio, 381 F.3d 1320, 1324 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (quoting In re Hyatt, 211
F.3d 1367, 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2000)). "Moreover, limitations are not to be read
into the claims from the specification." In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181,
1184 (Fed. Cir. 1993) (citing In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319, 321 (Fed. Cir.
1989)).

OBVIOUSNESS
The question of obviousness is resolved on the basis of underlying
factual determinations including (1) the scope and content of the prior art,
(2) any differences between the claimed subject matter and the prior art, and
(3) the level of skill in the art. Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1,
17-18 (1966).
“What matters is the objective reach of the claim. If the claim extends
to what is obvious, it is invalid under § 103.” KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc.,
550 U.S. 398, 419 (2007). To be nonobvious, an improvement must be
“more than the predictable use of prior art elements according to their
established functions.” Id. at 417.
Invention or discovery is the requirement which constitutes the
foundation of the right to obtain a patent . . . unless more ingenuity
and skill were required in making or applying the said improvement
than are possessed by an ordinary mechanic acquainted with the
business, there is an absence of that degree of skill and ingenuity
which constitute the essential elements of every invention.

Appeal 2009-003387
Application 10/300,443

6
Dunbar v. Myers, 94 U.S. 187, 197 (1876) (citing Hotchkiss v. Greenwood,
52 U.S. 248, 267 (1850)) (Hotchkiss v. Greenwood was cited with approval
by the Supreme Court in KSR, 550 U.S. at 406, 415, 427).
Appellant has the burden on appeal to the Board to demonstrate error
in the Examiner’s position. See In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 985-86 (Fed. Cir.
2006). Therefore, we look to Appellant’s Briefs to show error in the
proffered prima facie case.

FINDINGS OF FACT
HYODO
1. Hyodo discloses performing a “CRC arithmetic unit that reads
out the CRC arithmetic operation result from a plurality of ROM tables and
uses a plurality of EX-OR logic gates, with a plurality of ROMs 11 and a
plurality of exclusive OR gates 13 being connected in parallel.” (Col. 4, ll.
57-64 and Fig. 3). See Hyodo’s Figure 3 reproduced below:

Appeal 2009-003387
Application 10/300,443

7

Hyodo’s Figure 3

2. Hyodo discloses that “[t]he CRC arithmetic operation read out
from the corresponding ROM 11, are input to the EX-OR’s 13.” (Col. 5 ll.
5-13).

Appeal 2009-003387
Application 10/300,443

8

1. Appellant’s Specification, Figure 3, CRC output 122 from XOR gate
138
Appeal 2009-003387
Application 10/300,443

9
ANALYSIS
We decide the question of whether Appellant has shown the Examiner
erred in finding that Hyodo teaches or would have suggested the limitation
of providing for each of at least two data blocks of a series a corresponding
expected CRC that is a function of the data block to which it corresponds
and N data blocks preceding the data block to which it corresponds, wherein
N is an integer value of at least one, as recited in representative claim 1.
Appellant contends that the claim language should be interpreted to
mean that the at least two data blocks have a corresponding CRC that is a
function of the data block itself and a same number, N, of preceding data
blocks, such that a first block of the at least two data blocks cannot have a
CRC that is a function of a different number of preceding blocks than a
second block of the at least two data blocks. (App. Br. 12, ¶4). We disagree
for the reasons discussed infra.
At the outset, we broadly but reasonably interpret the argued
limitation as not precluding other data blocks from being used in the CRC
calculation. Interpreting the claim language as urged by Appellant would
require us to impermissibly read limitations into the claims. See Van Geuns,
988 F.2d at 1184. We conclude that the disputed claim language only
requires that for each of at least two data blocks, the expected CRC is a
function of: (1) the data block to which it corresponds, and (2) N data blocks
(at least one) preceding the data block. Therefore, we conclude that a broad,
but reasonable interpretation of the claim language does not exclude
additional data blocks, e.g., N+1, N+2 . . . etc., that precede the data block.

Appeal 2009-003387
Application 10/300,443

10
Based upon the aforementioned construction, we agree with and adopt
the Examiner’s findings with respect to this limitation. (Ans. 28).
Moreover, Appellant appears to admit that the CRC for each data block in
Hyodo is a function of the data block and all preceding data blocks of the
series, which in our view includes N. (See App. Br. 4, 1st full para.; see also
FF 1-2; cf. Appellant’s Figure 3 as reproduced above (FF 3)).
Based on the record before us, we find that Appellant has not shown
error in the Examiner’s rejection of representative claim 1 as being
unpatentable over Hyodo in view of Drottar. Claims 2, 4-7, 9, 20, 21, 23-26,
28, 30-32, 34, 35, 38, 43, and 50 fall therewith as being unpatentable over
Hyodo in view of Drottar.
As discussed above, Appellant reiterates the same argued limitation
for the independent claims 11 and 39 of the second stated rejection and does
not provide separate arguments for dependent claims 12, 14-17, 19, 36, 40,
42, 45, 47, and 49. (App. Br. 10-14). Regarding the third stated rejection,
dependent claims 3, 8, 13, 18, 22, 27, 33, 37, 41, and 48 are not separately
argued. (App. Br. 15). Therefore, we sustain the Examiner’s second and
third stated rejections for the same reasons discussed above regarding
claim 1. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii).

CONCLUSION
Based on the findings of facts and analysis above, Appellant has not
established that the Examiner erred in finding that the cited references teach
or would have suggested the limitation of providing for each of at least two
data blocks of a series a corresponding expected CRC that is a function of
Appeal 2009-003387
Application 10/300,443

11
the data block to which it corresponds and N data blocks preceding the data
block to which it corresponds, wherein N is an integer value of at least one.

DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-9, 11-28, 30-43,
45, and 47-50 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
No time for taking any action connected with this appeal may be
extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1). See 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED

pgc

HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY
Intellectual Property Administration
3404 E. Harmony Road
Mail Stop 35
FORT COLLINS CO 80528