Ex Parte Vogt

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Oct 21, 2011

10456206 (B.P.A.I. Oct. 21, 2011)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte PETE D. VOGT
_______

Appeal 2009-014651
Application 10/456,206
Technology Center 2100
____________

Before JOSEPH L. DIXON, ST. JOHN COURTENAY III, and
THU A. DANG, Administrative Patent Judges.

COURTENAY, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s final
rejection of claims 1-3, 5, and 7-20. Claims 4 and 6 were cancelled during
prosecution. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We Affirm-in-part.

Appeal 2009-014651
Application 10/456,206

2
Invention
Appellant’s invention is directed to:
A memory agent [that] may have a redrive circuit having
a plurality of redrive paths, and a deskew circuit separate
from the plurality of redrive paths. [The] deskew circuit
may be integral with or separate from a redrive circuit
having the plurality of redrive paths. [The]deskew circuit
may be coupled between a redrive circuit and a memory
device or interface.
(Abstract).
Illustrative Claims

1. A memory buffer comprising:

a redrive circuit having a plurality of redrive paths;

a deskew circuit coupled to and separate from the
plurality of redrive paths to selectively deskew data received in
the redrive circuit; and

a memory interface coupled to the deskew circuit.

18. A method comprising:

redriving a plurality of signals on a plurality of redrive
paths in a memory agent;

selectively deskewing the plurality of signals received in
the redrive path, separately from redriving the plurality of
signals; and

coupling the plurality of signals to a memory interface
after deskewing the plurality of signals.

Appeal 2009-014651
Application 10/456,206

3
Rejection
The Examiner rejected claims 1-3, 5 and 7-20 under 35 U.S.C.
§102(e) as being anticipated by Polzin (U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2004/0230718
A1).

ISSUE
Based upon our review of the administrative record, we have
determined that the following issue is dispositive in this appeal regarding
independent claims 1 and 7 and associated dependent claims:

Under §102, did the Examiner err in finding that the cited
Polzin reference discloses: “a deskew circuit coupled to
and separate from the plurality of redrive paths to
selectively deskew data received in the redrive circuit,”
within the meaning of independent claims 1 and 7?

We address the remaining claims separately, infra.

App
App

repro

eal 2009-0
lication 10
Because
duce it be
P

In the pr
[T
U
al
w
co
ci
ci
ou
33
14651
/456,206
the Exam
low for co
olzin’s Fig
incipal Br
]the alleg
nit 335) d
leged red
ould be re
nclusory
rcuit selec
rcuit." But
t where P
5 (the all
AN
iner relies,
nvenience
ure 3 illus
ief, Appell
ed deskew
oes not
rive circu
quired by
statement
tively desk
the Exam
olzin discl
eged desk
4
ALYSIS
inter alia
:
trating Do
ant presen
circuit (P
deskew an
it (Polzin
claim 1. T
that "Polz
ew[s] dat
iner has fa
oses that t
ew circuit
, on Polzin
wnlink Co
ts the follo
olzin's Ph
y data r
's Downli
he Exam
in disclos
a received
iled to sp
he Phase A
) selectiv
’s Figure
ntrol Unit
wing con
ase Align
eceived in
nk 312A
iner make
es the de
in the re
ecifically
lignment
ely aligns
3, we
342
tention:
ment
the
), as
s the
skew
drive
point
Unit
data

Appeal 2009-014651
Application 10/456,206

5
received in the Downlink 312A (input to the alleged
redrive circuit).

(App. Br. 4-5).

The Examiner disagrees:
With regards to claims 1, 7, 10, 15 and 18, Polzin
discloses both Downlink 312A and the Busy signal 371
being received by the redrive circuit Downlink Control
Unit 342, and phase aligned by Phase Alignment Units
310 and 335 (FIG. 3) where the skew and jitter in the
incoming data is compensated for (i.e. deskew circuit -
paragraph 39, lines 1-20). Both Downlink 312A and the
Busy signal 371 are data lines of the link in the
downstream direction (i.e. the redrive path - paragraph
24, lines 1-14, FIG. 1, 150A, 11 OA, 11 OB, paragraph
36, lines 5-16 paragraph 57, lines 5-9). Thus, the redrive
circuit receives data lines (the Busy signal being one of
them) and phase alignment is performed by the
corresponding deskew circuit (Phase Alignment Units
310 and 335). Thus, Polzin discloses deskewing data
from the redrive path received in the redrive circuit.

(Ans. 8, emphasis added).

In the Reply Brief, Appellant focuses the dispute and refers to a shift
in the Examiner’s position:
The Examiner has previously argued for an interpretation
of Polzin in which the signal path between Polzin's
Downlink 312A and downlink 312B discloses the recited
redrive circuit having a plurality of redrive paths (Office
Action of March 26, 2007, page 2, second paragraph
from bottom), and Polzin's Phase Alignment 335
discloses the recited deskew circuit (Office Action of
March 26, 2007, page 2, bottom paragraph).
As pointed out by Applicant, however, in this
interpretation the alleged deskew circuit cannot be
Appeal 2009-014651
Application 10/456,206

6
considered "coupled to" the plurality of redrive paths,
i.e., it cannot selectively deskew data received in the
redrive circuit as required by claim 1 (Appeal Brief page
4, second full paragraph).
Now, the Examiner is arguing for an interpretation
of Polzin in which the signal path including Phase
Alignment Unit 335 is also considered part of the redrive
circuit (Examiner's Answer, page 3, second full
paragraph from bottom, and page 8, first paragraph). That
is, as best understood by Applicant, the signal path
between Polzin's Downlink 312A and downlink 312B,
and the signal path between Polzin's Busy 371 and Busy
372 are now alleged to be part of the "redrive circuit
having a plurality of redrive paths" as recited in claim 1.

(Reply Br. 3-4).

We begin our analysis by observing that independent claims 1 and 7
are each directed to a specific structural circuit arrangement. Our reviewing
court guides that “[a]nticipation requires the presence in a single prior art
reference disclosure of each and every element of the claimed invention,
arranged as in the claim.” Lindemann Maschinenfabrik GMBH v. American
Hoist & Derrick Co., 730 F.2d 1452, 1458 (Fed. Cir. 1984) (citation
omitted).
Here, for the same reasons argued by Appellant, we agree that Polzin
does not disclose the claimed structural arrangement regarding independent
claims 1 and 7:

Although drawing a conceptual box around the signal
paths between Polzin's Downlink 312A and downlink
312B, and between Polzin's Busy 371 and Busy 372 may
arguably "couple" the alleged deskew circuit (Phase
Alignment Unit 335) to the plurality of redrive paths, the
deskew circuit can no longer be interpreted as "separate
Appeal 2009-014651
Application 10/456,206

7
from the plurality of redrive paths" as required by claim
1. Therefore, this alternative interpretation of Polzin is
also incorrect. Claims 7, 10, 15 and 18 recite limitations
similar to those of claim 1, and therefore, are not
anticipated by Polzin.

(Reply Br. 3-4).

Thus, under the Examiner’s broader reading of the claimed deskew
circuit on both of Polzin’s Phase Alignment Units 310 and 335 (Ans. 8), we
agree with the Examiner that Polzin's Busy 371 and Busy 372, and
Downlinks 312A and 312B (Fig. 3) are “coupled” (i.e., connect directly or
indirectly) as a “plurality of redrive paths” (claim 1) to the proffered deskew
circuit. (See Ans. 8).
However, we also agree with Appellant that under such a broad
reading, the Examiner’s proffered “deskew circuit” (Phase Alignment Units
310 and 335) is operably connected directly within the redrive path and
cannot reasonably be interpreted as being “coupled to and separate from the
plurality of redrive paths,” as required by the language of claim 1.
(Emphasis added). Therefore, we find the elements the Examiner points to
within Polzin’s Fig. 3 are not arranged as recited in Appellant’s claim 1.
We note that independent claim 7 recites the same limitation: “a
deskew circuit coupled to and separate from the plurality of redrive paths to
selectively deskew data received in the redrive circuit.” (Emphasis added).
Therefore, we reverse the Examiner’s anticipation rejection of independent
claims 1 and 7 and associated dependent claims 2, 3, 5, 8, and 9.

Appeal 2009-014651
Application 10/456,206

8
Independent claims 10, 15, and 18
We observe that independent claims 10 and 15 do not include the
“and separate from” language that was argued to distinguish independent
claims 1 and 7 over Polzin, as discussed above. We also observe that
independent claim 18 is directed to a method and not a structural
arrangement. Thus, the arguments Appellant advances for claims 1 and 7
are not commensurate with the broader scope of claims 10, 15, and 18. We
particularly observe that Appellant argues claims 1, 7, 10, 15, and 18
together as a group. (App. Br. 5).
Therefore, on this record, we find Appellant’s arguments for claims 1
and 7 are not persuasive of error regarding the Examiner’s finding of
anticipation for independent claims 10, 15, and 18. Arguments not made are
considered waived. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii). Accordingly, we
sustain the Examiner’s anticipation rejection of independent claims 10, 15
and 18, and dependent claims 13, 14, 16, 17, 19 and 20 which fall
therewith.1 See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii).

Claims 11 and 12
Regarding dependent claim 11, Appellant acknowledges that
“the Examiner identifies a structure 441, 411A, 411B that might
reasonably be interpreted as a second redrive circuit having a second
plurality of redrive paths as recited in claim 11 (Examiner's Answer,
page 5, second full paragraph from bottom).” (Reply Br. 4). Given

1 Appellant expressly states that claims 13, 14, 16, 17, 19, and 20 stand or
fall with their associated independent claims. (App. Br. 6).
Appeal 2009-014651
Application 10/456,206

9
Appellant’s admission, we sustain the Examiner’s anticipation
rejection of claim 11.
Regarding claim 12, Appellant contends in the Reply Brief that
“there is still no disclosure of a deskew circuit coupled to and
separate from the plurality of redrive paths as discussed above with
respect to claim 1.” (Reply Br. 4, emphasis added).
However, we observe that the argued limitation of “separate
from” is not recited in claim 12, or in claim 11 (or independent claim
10) from which claim 12 depends. Thus, Appellant’s argument is not
commensurate with the broader scope of claim 12. Therefore, we
sustain the Examiner’s anticipation rejection of claim 12.

DECISION
We reverse the Examiner’s § 102 rejection of claims 1-3, 5, and 7-9.

We affirm the Examiner’s § 102 rejection of claims 10-20.

No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a).

ORDER
AFFIRMED-IN-PART

Vsh