Ex Parte Toivanen et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardMay 8, 201713791619 (P.T.A.B. May. 8, 2017) 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. 13/791,619 03/08/2013 Kris Steven Toivanen ICTC140400 1010 26389 7590 05/10/2017 rTTRTSTRNSFN OTONNOR TOHNSON KTNDNFNN PT T C EXAMINER 1201 THIRD AVENUE BORROMEO, JUANITO C SUITE 3600 SEATTLE, WA 98101-3029 ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2184 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 05/10/2017 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): efiling @ cojk. com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte KRIS STEVEN TOIVANEN, SUKHDEEP SINGH HUNDAL, and THOMAS AARON SCHULTZ Appeal 2016-0051121 Application 13/791,619 Technology Center 2100 Before JEAN R. HOMERE, BRADLEY W. BAUMEISTER, and AARON W. MOORE, Administrative Patent Judges. HOMERE, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the Examiner’s Non-Final Rejection of claims 1—23, which constitute all of the claims pending in this appeal. App. Br. 1. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. 1 Appellants identify the real party in interest as Icron Technologies Corp. App. Br. 3. Appeal 2016-005112 Application 13/791,619 Appellants ’ Invention Appellants’ invention is directed to a method and system for establishing communication between a host device (102) and a universal serial bus (USB) device (108) via an upstream facing port (UFP) device (202) connected to the host device (102), and a downstream facing port (DFP) (204) connected to the USB device (108), wherein the latter connection forms a USB connection held in a logically disconnected state. Fig. 2, Spec. 4:4—8. Upon determining that the host device (102) supports SuperSpeed communication, a detection proxy engine (306) within the UFP device (202) selectively transmits a non-USB signal to the DFP device (204) via an extension medium between the UFP device (202) and the DFP device (204), thereby enabling switching circuitry of the DFP device (204) to cause receiver termination circuitry of the DFP device (204) to be coupled to a conductor for transmission of data from the USB device (108) to the DFP device (204). Id. at 4:8—13, Fig. 3. Illustrative Claim Independent claim 1 is illustrative, and reads as follows: 1. An upstream facing port device (UFP device), comprising: at least one upstream facing port coupleable to a host device or a hub device via a USB protocol; an extension medium transceiver configured to establish a connection between the UFP device and a downstream facing port device (DFP device) via an extension medium; and a detection proxy engine configured to: determine whether a host device or hub device coupled to the at least one upstream facing port supports SuperSpeed communication; and 2 Appeal 2016-005112 Application 13/791,619 selectively transmit a non-USB signal to the DFP device via the extension medium to cause receiver termination to be presented by the DFP device based on the determination of whether the host device or hub device supports SuperSpeed communication. Prior Art Relied Upon Jackson US 7,028,133 B1 Apr. 11,2006 Yang US 2008/0071962 A1 Mar. 20,2008 Universal Serial Bus 3.0 Specification, Revision 1.0 (including errata and ECNs through May 1, 2011), June 6, 2011 (hereinafter “the USB 3.0 Spec.”) Rejection on Appeal Claims 1—23 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Yang, the USB 3.0 Spec., and Jackson. ANALYSIS We consider Appellants’ arguments seriatim, as they are presented in the Appeal Brief, pages 9—24, and pages 7—15 in the Reply Brief.2 We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejection in light of Appellants’ arguments. We are unpersuaded by Appellants’ contentions. Except as indicated otherwise, 2 Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellants and the Examiner, we refer to the Appeal Brief (App. Br., filed September 30, 2015), the Reply Brief (Reply Br., filed April 11, 2016), the Answer (Ans., mailed February 11, 2016), and the Non-Final Rejection (Fin. Act., mailed April 2, 2015) for their respective details. We have considered in this Decision only those arguments Appellants actually raised in the Briefs. Any other arguments Appellants could have made but chose not to make in the Briefs are deemed to be waived. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv) (2013). 3 Appeal 2016-005112 Application 13/791,619 we adopt as our own the findings and reasons set forth in the rejections from which the appeal is taken and in the Examiner’s Answer in response to Appellants’ Appeal Brief. See Ans. 3—10, Fin. Act. 2—6. However, we highlight and address specific arguments and findings for emphasis as follows. First, Appellants argue the proposed combination of Yang, the USB 3.0 Spec., and Jackson does not teach or suggest a detection proxy engine configured to selectively transmit a non-USB signal to the DFP device to cause receiver termination to be presented by the DFP device depending on whether the host device supports SuperSpeed communication, as recited in claim 1. App. Br. 11—12. In particular, Appellants ague that Jackson is limited to technology related to full speed and low speed communication, and lacks any teaching pertaining to SuperSpeed of USB communication or receiver termination. Id. at 12 (citing Jackson 1:14—20, 2:42-43). Further, Appellants argue that because the USB 3.0 Spec, relates to the transmission of USB compliant signals, it does not teach transmitting non-USB signals. Id. Therefore, Appellants submit that neither Jackson nor the USB 3.0 Spec, cures the noted deficiencies of Yang. Id. These arguments are not persuasive because they are tantamount to individual attacks against the cited references. One cannot show non obviousness by attacking the references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986); see also In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981). 4 Appeal 2016-005112 Application 13/791,619 At the outset, we note that Appellants have not disputed the Examiner’s findings regarding the cited references, taken individually or in combination. In particular, the Examiner finds Yang teaches the host device (102) communicating with a USB device (104) via the virtual device (108) and the peripheral gateway (110). Final Act. 3 (citing Yang Fig. 1, 2A, 2B). Further, the Examiner finds the USB 3.0 Spec, teaches a USB hub (a detection proxy engine) that enables SuperSpeed communication between the USB 3.0 host and the USB 3.0 peripheral device upon detecting that the host supports SuperSpeed communication. Id. at 4 (citing the USB 3.0 Spec. Fig. 10-3). Additionally, the Examiner finds Jackson teaches a proxy device transmitting a non-USB signal to a DFP device. Id. (citing Jackson Fig. 5). Furthermore, the Examiner provides a rationale for combining Yang with the USB 3.0 Spec, and provides separate rationale for combining Yang and the USB 3.0 Spec, with Jackson. Id. at 4—5. In contrast, Appellants have not addressed any of the cited specific findings made by the Examiner. Instead, Appellants challenge each of the references by disputing teachings for which they are not relied upon. In particular, Appellants’ argument that neither Yang nor Jackson teaches or suggests SuperSpeed communication is unavailing because the Examiner relied upon the USB 3.0 Spec, for such teaching. Likewise, the Examiner relied upon Jackson (not the USB 3.0 Spec.) for the teaching of transmitting a non-USB signal. Accordingly, because Appellants failed to squarely rebut the specific findings made by the Examiner, Appellants have failed to show 5 Appeal 2016-005112 Application 13/791,619 error in the obviousness rejection of claim 1. Therefore, we sustain the rejection of claim 1. Regarding the rejection of claim 6, Appellants argue that claim 6 is different from claim 1 because the latter requires an upstream facing port device, whereas the former requires a downstream facing port device. According to Appellants, because the two devices are different, the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 6 for the same reason as in rejecting claim 1. App. Br. 13—14. Further, Appellants argue that the combination of Yang, the USB 3.0 Spec., and Jackson does not render claim 6 unpatentable because the hub in the USB 3.0 Spec, is required to connect upstream, whereas the claim requires selectively causing receiver termination to be presented by a UFP. Id. at 14—16 (citing USB section 7.5.3, 10-3). These arguments are not persuasive. Appellants correctly argue that claim 1 is different from claim 6 in that claim 1 requires, in a UFP, a detection proxy engine causing receiver termination to be presented by a DFP based on the determination that the host device supports SuperSpeed communication, whereas claim 6 requires, in a DFP, a detection proxy engine causing receiver termination to be presented by a UFP based on the determination that the USB device supports SuperSpeed communication. However, we agree with the Examiner that the overall structures of the cited system claims are quite similar in that they are both concerned with establishing SuperSpeed communication based on the determination that a device connected to the UFP/DFP supports SuperSpeed communications such that SuperSpeed communication can be maintained bi- 6 Appeal 2016-005112 Application 13/791,619 directionally based on the determination that the host or the USB peripheral device supports USB communication. The USB 3.0 Spec., Fig. 10.3. Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of claim 6. Regarding the rejection of claims 2—5 and 7—23, because Appellants either have not presented separate patentability arguments or have reiterated substantially the same arguments as those previously discussed for patentability of claims 1 and 6 above, claims 2—5 and 7—23 fall therewith. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv) (2013). DECISION We affirm the Examiner’s rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) of claims 1—23. 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 7 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation