Ex Parte Tavallaei

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 26, 2016

13126032 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 26, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
13/126,032 04/26/2011 Siamak Tavallaei
56436 7590 08/30/2016
Hewlett Packard Enterprise
3404 E. Harmony Road
Mail Stop 79
Fort Collins, CO 80528
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.
82716617 9894
EXAMINER
CEHIC, KENAN
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2479
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/30/2016 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):
hpe.ip.mail@hpe.com
mkraft@hpe.com
chris.mania@hpe.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte SIAMAK TA V ALLAEI
Appeal2014-009428
Application 13/126,032
Technology Center 2400
Before DEBRA K. STEPHENS, JASON V. MORGAN, and
DAVID J. CUTITTA II, Administrative Patent Judges.
STEPHENS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a Final Rejection of
claims 1-17. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
Appeal2014-009428
Application 13/126,032
STATEMENT OF THE INVENTION
According to Appellant, the claims are directed to a bit inversion for
communication interface (Abstract). Claim 1, reproduced below, is
representative of the claimed subject matter:
1. A system, comprising:
a first component;
a second component; and
a communication interface between the first and second
components, wherein a communication packet transmitted
from the first component to the second component comprises
a bit inversion identifier, and wherein the bit inversion
identifier comprises a plurality of bits, the plurality of bits
comprising a first bit that signals the existence of bit
inversion and a second bit that signals which of a plurality of
communication packets contain inverted bits.
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal are:
Chih et al.
Shin et al.
Powell
US 6,535,217 Bl
US 2003/0227947 Al
US 2007 /0075838 Al
REJECTIONS
Mar. 18, 2003
Dec. 11, 2003
Apr. 5, 2007
Claims 1-8, 10, 11, and 14--17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §102(b)
as being anticipated by Shin (Final Act. 2-8).
Claim 9 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Shin and Chih (Final Act. 9-10).
2
Appeal2014-009428
Application 13/126,032
Claims 12 and 13 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as being
unpatentable over Shin and Powell (Final Act. 10-11 ).
ISSUES
35 U.S. C. § 102(b): Claims 1-8, 10, 11, and 14-17
Appellant contends the invention as recited in claim 1, is not
anticipated by Shin (App. Br. 11-12). The issue presented by the arguments
1s:
Issue 1: Has the Examiner erred in finding Shin discloses "the bit
inversion identifier comprises a plurality of bits ... comprising a second bit
that signals which of a plurality of communication packets contain inverted
bits," as recited in independent claim 1 and commensurately recited in
independent claims 10 and 16?
ANALYSIS
Appellant asserts although Shin discloses one bit of the symbol is a bit
inversion indicator, Shin does not disclose a second bit that signals which of
a plurality of communication packets contain inverted bits (App. Br. 11-12).
According to Appellant, Shin's symbol only appears to signal whether the
block in which the symbol resides has been inverted and does not disclose
the symbol signals whether any other blocks have been inverted (id. (citing
Shin i-f 135)). Thus, Appellant argues Shin does not disclose "a second bit
that signals which of a plurality of communication packets contain inverted
bits," as recited in claim 1 (App. Br. 11 ).
Appellant further argues Shin determines whether the block of Shin
has been inverted based on whether the first symbol of the block is an in-
band symbol or an out-of-band symbol, not based on any bit in the symbol,
even the bit inversion identifier (id. (citing Shin i-f 135)). Therefore,
3
Appeal2014-009428
Application 13/126,032
Appellant asserts, as the bit inversion identifier in Shin is a single bit, Shin
does not disclose "the bit inversion identifier comprises a plurality of bits"
(App. Br. 12).
We are not persuaded by Appellant's arguments. We agree with the
Examiner that Shin discloses an encoding technique in which a ninth bit
(i.e., a transition inversion indicating bit) is added to the 8-bit code to
indicate whether the alternate bits of the code were inverted (Shin i-f 130;
Ans. 2-3). Thus, Shin's transition inversion discloses "a first bit that signals
the existence of bit inversion," as recited in claim 1.
We further agree with the Examiner that Shin discloses "[ w ]hen a
block of symbols is received, the receiving communications node can
determine whether the block has been block inverted by checking the first
symbol of the block" (Shin i-f 135; see also Ans. 3). Specifically, "[i]f the
first symbol of the block is an out-of-band symbol, then the block has been
block inverted" (Shin i-f 135). The out-of-band symbol is a result of Shin's
transition inversion, but it is the out-of-band symbol itself that indicates that
all the bits of the other symbols in the block are inverted (id.).
Additionally, "[i]f the first symbol of the block in an in-band symbol, then
the block has not been block inverted" (id.). Therefore, as set forth by the
Examiner, Shin discloses the bits of the first symbol indicate whether the
following symbols (in the block) have been inverted, i.e., which of a
plurality of communication packets contain inverted bits (Final Act. 3; Shin
i-fi-1 135-136, Fig. 2 la). Claim 1 recites "a second bit" signals which of a
plurality of communication packets contain inverted bits. Thus, the claim,
as recited may be construed as having only two options as to "which of a
plurality of communication packets contain inverted bits." Thus, we are not
4
Appeal2014-009428
Application 13/126,032
persuaded Shin's first symbol being either an out-of-band symbol or in-band
symbol, fails to teach "which of a plurality of communication packets
contain inverted bits."
We further note the claim does not preclude additional bits for the
recited signaling. Thus, taking a broad, but reasonable interpretation, in
light of the Specification, we are not persuaded by Appellant's arguments.
(See also Spec. i-f 23; App. Br. 7). Accordingly, we are persuaded Shin's
polarity inversion discloses "a second bit that signals which of a plurality of
communication packets contain inverted bits," as recited in claim 1.
Because the Examiner correctly finds that Shin discloses both "a first bit"
and "a second bit," as claimed, we also find unpersuasive Appellant's
argument that "the only bit inversion identifier in Shin is a single bit." (App.
Br. 12).
It follows, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in finding Shin
discloses the invention as recited in independent claim 1 and
commensurately recited independent claims 10 and 16. Dependent claims
2-8, 11, 14, 15, and 17 are not separately argued (App. Br. 12); therefore,
these claims fall with their respective independent claims. Thus, we sustain
the rejection of claims 1-8, 10, 11, and 14-17 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) for
anticipation by Shin.
35 U.S.C. § 103(a): Claim 9
Appellant contends the invention as recited in claim 9, is not obvious
over Shin and Chih because Chih does not cure the deficiencies of Shin as
set forth with respect to claim 1 (App. Br. 12-13). As set forth above, we
are not persuaded by Appellant's arguments regarding claim 1.
5
Appeal2014-009428
Application 13/126,032
Accordingly, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in finding the
combination of Shin and Chih teaches or suggests the limitations as recited
in claim 9. Therefore, we sustain the rejection of claim 9 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) for obviousness over Shin and Chih.
35 U.S.C. § 103(a): Claims 12-13
Appellant further contends Powell does not teach the invention as
recited in claim 12 (App. Br. 13-14). The issue presented by the arguments
1s:
Issue 2: Has the Examiner erred in concluding the combination of
Shin and Powell teaches or suggests "determining if a length of time needed
for bit inversion signaling is less than a predetermined threshold and, if so,
providing the associated bit inversion identifier in the communication
packet," as recited in claim 12?
ANALYSIS
Appellant initially contends the invention as recited in claims 12-13,
is not obvious over Shin and Powell because Powell does not cure the
deficiencies of Shin as set forth with respect to claim 1 (App. Br. 13-14).
As set forth above, we are not persuaded by Appellant's arguments
regarding claim 1.
Appellant additionally asserts Powell adjusts the time slot in which an
RFID tag is designated to respond from a later time slot, than the original
time slot, if the number of empty time slots is determined to be below a
predetermined threshold (App. Br. 14 (citing Powell i-f 8)). According to
Appellant, Powell does not teach the identifier is provided in the same
communication packet (App. Br. 14).
6
Appeal2014-009428
Application 13/126,032
We are not persuaded by Appellant's arguments. The Examiner relies
on the combination of Shin and Powell as teaching the disputed limitations
(Final Act. 10-12) while Appellant is arguing the references individually
(App. Br. 14). Specifically, the Examiner relies on Shin as teaching
providing the associated bit inversion identifier in the communication packet
(Final Act. 10) and Powell as teaching determining if a length is greater than
a predetermined threshold and when the signal would be sent (id. at 11 ).
Appellant has not proffered sufficient evidence or argument to persuade us
of error in the Examiner's findings.
Accordingly, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in finding the
combination of Shin and Powell teaches or suggests the limitations as recited
in claims 12-13. Therefore, we sustain the rejection of claims 12-13 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) for obviousness over Shin and Powell.
DECISION
The Examiner's rejection of claims 1-8, 10, 11, and 14--17 under 35
U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Shin is affirmed.
The Examiner's rejection of claim 9 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Shin and Chih is affirmed.
The Examiner's rejection of claims 12-13 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Shin and Powell 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). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(l )(iv).
7
Appeal2014-009428
Application 13/126,032
AFFIRMED
8