Ex parte Willis et al.

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Mar 23, 2001

08454268 (B.P.A.I. Mar. 23, 2001)

The opinion in support of the decision being entered today was not written for
publication and is not binding precedent of the Board.
Paper No. 19
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________
Ex parte TREVOR E. WILLIS and ADRIAN M. SUGGETT
____________
Appeal No. 1998-2226
Application No. 08/454,268
____________
ON BRIEF
____________
Before THOMAS, FLEMING and LALL, Administrative Patent Judges.
LALL, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from
the final rejection of claims 1-4 and 6-8. Claim 5 has been
canceled.
The invention is directed to an interface apparatus for
connection between a data handling device such as a computer
and a data communication medium, such as a network, to enable
data to be transferred between the device and the medium. The
interface apparatus includes a data alignment device and a
Appeal No. 1998-2226
Application No. 08/454,268
2
memory coupled to the data alignment device for data transfer.
The memory includes a number of substantially identical
subsidiary memories. The data alignment device has a number
of first ports, one connected to each of the subsidiary
memories. The data
alignment device also has a corresponding number of second
ports connected to the data handling device. Under control of
a bus interface and control logic, each first port is
connectable with any one of the second ports. The invention
is further illustrated by the following claim.
1. Interface apparatus for connection between a data
handling device and a data communication medium to enable data
to be transferred between the device and the medium, the
apparatus comprising a data alignment device coupled in use to
the data handling device; a memory coupled for data transfer
to the data alignment device, the memory including a number of
substantially identical subsidiary, First-In-First-Out (FIFO)
memories arranged in parallel, the number of subsidiary
memories being chosen such that an overall width of said
subsidiary memories is at least equal to the longest length of
data to be transferred between the memory and the alignment
device in a single transfer step and the width of each
subsidiary memory being equal to the shortest length of data
to be transferred between the memory and the alignment device
in a single transfer step; the data
alignment device having a number of first ports, one connected
to each of the subsidiary FIFOs and a corresponding number of
second ports connected in use to the data handling device, and
means for connecting any first port to any second port; and
control means for controlling operation of the data alignment
device such that in any transfer step, data having a length
Appeal No. 1998-2226
Application No. 08/454,268
3
corresponding to an integer multiple of the said shortest
length of data can be transferred between the memory and the
second ports of the data alignment device with the order of
data within the length of data being determined by the
connections between the first and second ports of the data
alignment device.
Appeal No. 1998-2226
Application No. 08/454,268
1 A reply brief was filed as Paper No. 16, and was entered
into the record, Paper No. 17.
4
The Examiner relies on the following reference:
Szczepanek 5,305,317 Apr. 19, 1994
(filed April 24, 1992)
Claims 1-4 and 6-8 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103
over
Szczepanek.
Rather than repeat the positions and the arguments of
Appellants and the Examiner, we make reference to the briefs1
and the answer for the respective positions.
OPINION
We have considered the rejections advanced by the
Examiner. We have, likewise, reviewed Appellants' arguments
against the rejections as set forth in the briefs.
It is our view, after consideration of the record before
us, that the rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103 are not proper.
Accordingly, we reverse.
ANALYSIS
As a general proposition, in an appeal involving a
rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103, an Examiner is under a burden
to make out a prima facie case of obviousness. If that burden
Appeal No. 1998-2226
Application No. 08/454,268
5
is met, the burden of going forward then shifts to the
applicant to overcome the prima facie case with argument
and/or evidence. Obviousness, is then determined on the basis
of the evidence as a whole and the relative persuasiveness of
the arguments. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445, 24
USPQ2d 1443, 1444 (Fed. Cir. 1992); In re Hedges, 783 F.2d
1038, 1039, 228 USPQ 685, 686 (Fed. Cir. 1986); In re
Piasecki, 745 F.2d 1468, 1472, 223 USPQ 785, 788 (Fed. Cir.
1984); and In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048, 1052, 189 USPQ 143,
147 (CCPA 1976).
Having reviewed the position of the Examiner, answer at
pages 5-10, and the position of Appellants, brief at pages 4-8
and reply brief, at pages 1-5, we conclude that the Examiner
has not met his burden of making a prima facie case in
rejecting these claims. Szczepanek does not even disclose the
concept embodied by the claimed "means for connecting any
first port to any second port; and control means for
controlling operation of the data alignment device such that
in any transfer step, data having a length corresponding to an
integer multiple of the said shortest length of data can be
transferred between the memory and the second ports of the
Appeal No. 1998-2226
Application No. 08/454,268
6
data alignment device with the order of data within the length
of data being determined by the connections between the first
and second ports of the data alignment device." (claim 1).
As asserted by the Examiner, answer at page 5,
Szczepanek,
col. 18, lines 55-65, does state that "a byte counter is
maintained for data alignment." However, Szczepanek's "data
alignment" is not the same data alignment as recited in the
claim. In Szczepanek, the byte counter simply makes sure that
the proper parts of a frame (an information packet) are
appended to the frame at particular times of the transmission
of the frame. In Szczepanek, therefore, there is no shifting
of data among the various ports as alleged by the Examiner.
This is clearly different from the data alignment device as
claimed in the recited language which allows simultaneous
shifting of data from each of the subsidiary FIFOs by
controlling the connections between the first and second
ports. The byte counter of Szczepanek simply monitors and
controls the order in which various parts of a frame are
appended to the frame as it is being transmitted between the
internet and the first computer. Thus, we agree with
Appeal No. 1998-2226
Application No. 08/454,268
7
Appellants that, reply brief at page 4, unlike the byte
counter of Szczepanek, the claimed "data alignment device does
not just synchronize bytes but actually organizes their
relative order within the length of data and, furthermore,
forms
Appeal No. 1998-2226
Application No. 08/454,268
8
a part of the flow path through which data is conveyed."
Therefore, we will not sustain the rejection of claims 1-4 and
6-8 over Szczepanek.
Accordingly, the decision of the Examiner rejecting
claims 1-4 and 6-8 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Szczepanek is
reversed.
REVERSED
JAMES D. THOMAS )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
MICHAEL R. FLEMING ) APPEALS
Administrative Patent Judge ) AND
) INTERFERENCES
)
)
)
PARSHOTAM S. LALL )
Administrative Patent Judge )
jg
Appeal No. 1998-2226
Application No. 08/454,268
9
SUGHRUE MION ZINN MACPEAK & SEAS, PLLC
1010 EL CAMINO REAL
SUITE 360
MENLO PARK, CA 94025