Ex Parte Thayer

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 24, 2014

12241866 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 24, 2014)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte LARRY J. THAYER
____________________

Appeal 2011-012785
Application 12/241,866
Technology Center 2100
____________________

Before JEFFREY S. SMITH, MICHAEL J. STRAUSS, and
DANIEL N. FISHMAN, Administrative Patent Judges.

STRAUSS, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2011-012785
Application 12/241,866

2
STATEMENT OF CASE
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of
claims 1-4, 6, 8-10, 12, and 13. Claim 7 is allowed, and claims 5, 11, and 14
are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be
allowable if rewritten in independent form. We have jurisdiction over the
rejected claims under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.

THE INVENTION
The claims are directed to repairing high-speed serial links. Abst.
Claim 1, reproduced below, is representative of the claimed subject matter:
1. A method for repairing serial links, comprising:
detecting a link error;
mapping out individual lanes of a link where the link
error is detected in order to generate a map of where and how
data traffic will flow in the link;
monitoring the lanes for errors during operation;
identifying the lanes in which the link error occurs; and
deactivating the lanes in which the link error has
occurred in order to reduce the occurrence of intermittent link
errors.

REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Sharma
Sivaramakrishnan
US 2007/0011549 A1
US 2010/0083066 A1
Jan. 11, 2007
Apr. 1, 2010
(filed Sep. 29, 2008)

Appeal 2011-012785
Application 12/241,866

3
REJECTIONS1
The Examiner made the following rejections:
Claims 1-4, 6, 8-10, 12, and 13 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(e) as being anticipated by Sivaramakrishnan. Ans. 4-7.
Claims 1, 3, 4, 8-10, 12, and 13 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) as being anticipated by Sharma. Ans. 7-9.

APPELLANT’S CONTENTIONS
1. Sivaramakrishnan’s shifting of data flow between groups of lanes to
eliminate data flow through a failed link fails to disclose mapping
lanes to generate a map of where and how data traffic will flow in
each link as required by claims 1 and 8. App. Br. 7.
2. Sharma’s technique for training a PCIe link to ignore a faulty lane
fails to disclose the disputed limitation of mapping out individual
lanes of a link where the link error is detected in order to generate a
map of where and how data traffic will flow in the link as required by
claims 1 and 8. App. Br. 9.

ISSUES ON APPEAL
Based on Appellant’s arguments in the Appeal Brief (App. Br. 4-10)
and Reply Brief (Reply Br. 1-4), the issues presented on appeal are:

1 Appellant collectively argues the rejection of independent claims 1 and 8.
Separate patentability is not argued for dependent claims 2-4, 6, 9, 10, 12,
and 13. Therefore, on Appellant’s arguments, we decide the appeal of claims
1-4, 6, 8-10, 12, and 13 based on claim 1 alone. See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(1)(vii).
Appeal 2011-012785
Application 12/241,866

4
1. Whether the Examiner erred in finding Sivaramakrishnan discloses
the disputed limitation of claim 1.
2. Whether the Examiner erred in finding Sharma discloses the disputed
limitation of claim 1.

ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellant’s
arguments that the Examiner has erred. We disagree with Appellant’s
conclusions. We adopt as our own (1) the findings and reasons set forth by
the Examiner in the action from which this appeal is taken (Ans. 4-9) and (2)
the reasons set forth by the Examiner in the Examiner’s Answer in response
to Appellant’s Appeal Brief (Ans. 10-14) and concur with the conclusions
reached by the Examiner. We highlight the following for emphasis.

35 U.S.C. § 102(e) – Sivaramakrishnan
Appellant “contends that the mere shifting of data flow in
Sivaramakrishnan does not anticipate independent claims 1 and 8. Instead,
as listed above, claims 1 and 8 recite features directed to an iterative
approach to identify lane(s) in which the link error is occurring.” App. Br. 7.
Appellant argues claims 1 and 8 require mapping and monitoring the lanes
“one at a time to detect and identify the particular lane(s) in which the link
error is occurring” while “Sivaramakrishnan simply discloses shifting data
flow.” App. Br. 8. The Examiner responds by finding Sivaramakrishnan’s
Figures 3A and 3B depict a logical mapping between lanes 0-13 and bits 0-
11 flowing though each lane. Ans. 10. The Examiner further finds
Sivaramakrishnan’s remapping the logical to physical mapping to avoid
Appeal 2011-012785
Application 12/241,866

5
using a failed physical lane discloses “mapping out individual lanes of a link
where the link error is detected (remapping the logical to physical mapping
of lanes 0-13) in order to generate a map of where and how data traffic will
flow in the link.” Id. We agree with the Examiner and find Appellant’s
arguments unpersuasive of error.
Appellant’s Specification does not provide a specific definition of
“mapping out” or a “map.” The Specification discloses: “During mapping,
links 20 between devices are identified and the width (number of lanes 30)
of a link 20 can be determined. A map of where and how data traffic will
flow in each link 20 is generated.” Spec. ¶ 19. We construe “mapping out” to
include associating physical lanes of a link with, for example, respective
logical lanes. Furthermore, in the absence of a definition of a “map,” we
construe the term to encompass any description or definition associating
respective physical and logical lanes including a manifestation resulting
from performing a mapping, e.g., circuitry associating respective physical
and logical lanes. Accordingly, we agree with the Examiner that the
operation of Sivaramakrishnan’s multiplexers, which “automatically remap
the logical to physical mapping [such] that the failed physical lane is not
used,” discloses the disputed limitation of mapping out individual lanes of a
link where the link error is detected in order to generate a map of where and
how data traffic will flow in the link. Ans. 4, 10; Sivaramakrishnan ¶ 26.
We further agree with the Examiner, finding Appellant’s argument that
Sivaramakrishnan fails to disclose an iterative approach to identify faulty
lanes is not commensurate in scope with the claims. Ans. 11. Because claims
1 and 8 include no limitation corresponding to the argued deficiency, such
argument is unpersuasive of error. We further disagree with Appellant that
Appeal 2011-012785
Application 12/241,866

6
“Sivaramakrishnan does not disclose mapping out individual lanes of a link”
(App. Br. 8) for the reasons supra and as explained by the Examiner (Ans.
11-12). Furthermore, while we agree Sivaramakrishnan discloses the entirety
of the disputed limitation, we note in passing the recitation “in order to
generate a map of where and how data traffic will flow in the link” is a
statement of intended purpose, not a positively recited step or action, and
therefore not entitled to patentable weight.2
For the reasons supra, we find Appellant’s arguments unpersuasive of
Examiner error. Therefore, we sustain the rejection of independent claims 1
and 8 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being anticipated by
Sivaramakrishnan together with dependent claims 2-4, 6, 9, 10, 12, and 13
not separately argued.

35 U.S.C. § 102(b) – Sharma
In connection with contention 2, the Examiner responds:
In paragraphs 0018 and 0019, Sharma discloses that out of
lanes 0, 1, 2, and 3, it is detected that lane 2 has a failure.
During a training sequence device 1 sends a prepared training
sequence on lanes 0, 1, and 3 and a compliance pattern on lane
2. After the training sequence, lane 2 is left out of the link
formation and data only flows through lanes 0, 1, and 3
([thereby disclosing] mapping out individual lanes of a link
where the link error is detected in order to generate a map of
where and how data traffic will flow in the link).

2 “An intended use or purpose usually will not limit the scope of the claim
because such statements usually do no more than define a context in which
the invention operates.” See Boehringer Ingelheim Vetmedica, Inc. v.
Schering-Plough Corp., 320 F.3d 1339, 1345 (Fed. Cir. 2003); In re Stencel,
828 F.2d 751, 754 (Fed. Cir. 1987) (Although “[s]uch statements often . . .
appear in the claim’s preamble,” a statement of intended use or purpose can
appear elsewhere in a claim.).
Appeal 2011-012785
Application 12/241,866

7
Ans. 12.
We agree with the Examiner that Sharma discloses the disputed
limitation. We are unpersuaded by Appellant’s argument that “Sharma[’s]
actions of leaving a failed lane out of the formation process and having the
PCI Express link operate in a degraded mode without the bad lane cannot
reasonably characterized as mapping out individual lanes of a link where the
link error is detected, as claimed.” App. Br. 9. We agree with the Examiner
(Ans. 13) that, in the absence of adequate explanation of why the cited
findings made by the Examiner are in error, such argument amounts to no
more than a general allegation that the disputed limitation is not disclosed by
Sharma.3 We therefore find such argument insufficient to rebut the
Examiner’s findings and unpersuasive of Examiner error. Furthermore,
Appellant’s argument that Sharma does not disclose an iterative mapping
approach (App. Br. 9) is not commensurate in scope with the claims and
therefore unpersuasive of error. Finally, we disagree with Appellant that
Sharma fails to disclose monitoring lanes to identify a faulty lane (id.) for
the reasons given by the Examiner (Ans. 13-14).
For the reasons supra, we find Appellant’s arguments unpersuasive of
Examiner error. Therefore, we sustain the rejection of independent claims 1
and 8 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Sharma
together with dependent claims 3, 4, 9, 10, 12, and 13 not separately argued.

3 See In re Lovin, 652 F.3d 1349, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (“[W]e hold that the
Board reasonably interpreted Rule 41.37 to require more substantive
arguments in an appeal brief than a mere recitation of the claim elements and
a naked assertion that the corresponding elements were not found in the
prior art.”).
Appeal 2011-012785
Application 12/241,866

8
CONCLUSIONS
We find
1. The Examiner did not err in finding Sivaramakrishnan discloses the
disputed limitation of claim 1.
2. The Examiner did not err in finding Sharma discloses the disputed
limitation of claim 1.
3. The Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 1-4, 6, 8-10, 12, and 13
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being anticipated by Sivaramakrishnan.
4. The Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 1, 3, 4, 8-10, 12, and 13
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Sharma.

DECISION
The Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1-4, 6, 8-10, 12, and 13 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)(iv) (2009).

AFFIRMED

bab