Ex Parte WU

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Sep 23, 2003

09213924 (B.P.A.I. Sep. 23, 2003)

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publication and is not binding precedent of the Board.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. 16
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________
Ex parte LEON LI-HENG WU
____________
Appeal No. 2002-0590
Application No. 09/213,924
____________
ON BRIEF
____________
Before KRASS, RUGGIERO, and DIXON, Administrative Patent Judges.
DIXON, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal from the examiner's final rejection of claims 1-42,
which are all of the claims pending in this application.
We REVERSE.
Appeal No. 2002-0590
Application No. 09/213,924
2
BACKGROUND
Appellant's invention relates to a synchronized signal transfer system. An
understanding of the invention can be derived from a reading of exemplary claim 1,
which is reproduced below.
1. A memory system comprising:
a memory controller;
a first memory device;
a first data bus for transporting data between the memory controller and
the first memory device;
a first clock bus, carrying a first clock signal, for facilitating a transfer of the
data from the memory controller to the first memory device; and
a second clock bus, carrying a second clock signal, facilitating a transfer
of the data from the first memory device to the memory controller, wherein the first and
second clock buses are separate buses, wherein the first and second clock signals are
separately generated.
The prior art references of record relied upon by the examiner in rejecting the
appealed claims are:
Gasbarro et al. (Gasbarro) 5,432,823 Jul. 11, 1995
Niu et al. (Niu) 6,161,160 Dec. 12, 2000
(Filed Sep. 3, 1998)
Claims 1-42 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over
Gasbarro in view of Niu.
Appeal No. 2002-0590
Application No. 09/213,924
3
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by the examiner and
appellant regarding the above-noted rejections, we make reference to the examiner's
final rejection (Paper No. 6, mailed Dec. 20, 2000) and the examiner’s answer (Paper
No. 13, mailed Dec. 18, 2001) for the examiner's reasoning in support of the rejections,
and to appellant's brief (Paper No. 10, filed May 21, 2001) and reply brief (Paper No. 14,
filed Feb. 7, 2002) for appellant's arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given careful consideration to
appellant's specification and claims, to the applied prior art references, and to the
respective positions articulated by appellant and the examiner. As a consequence of
our review, we make the determinations which follow.
Appellant argues that Gasbarro teaches a single clock on a single bus and
therefore, the teachings of Gasbarro do not teach or suggest the use of two separate
clocks and two clock buses. (See brief at pages 4-5.) We agree with appellant. The
examiner maintains that Niu teaches the use of two clocks in two different buses. (See
final rejection at page 3.) While we agree with the examiner that Niu teaches the use of
two clocks and two buses for the two different time domains, we do not find “a second
clock bus, carrying a second clock signal, facilitating a transfer of the data from the first
memory device to the memory controller” as recited in the claims. Here, independent
Appeal No. 2002-0590
Application No. 09/213,924
4
claim 1 recites that the buses facilitate transfer of data from the first memory to the
memory controller and from the memory controller to the first memory. We find no
teaching in Niu that the two buses are used to facilitate the transfers between the same
memory and same memory controller. Appellant argues that Niu has “nothing to do with
memory systems where data is transmitted between a memory controller and memory
devices.” (See brief at page 5.) We agree with appellant. While Niu teaches the
storage of information in a memory, we do not find that it is a “memory system” as
recited in the claims. While the system of Niu is in a data processing system and has
memory, we agree with appellant (brief at pages 5-6) that it would not have been
obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to look to these
general teachings of Niu to modify the control of the memory system of Gasbarro which
is all within the same system. Therefore, we disagree with the examiner’s line of
reasoning in the statement of motivation to combine the teachings (final rejection at
page 4), and we cannot sustain the rejection of independent claim 1 and its dependent
claims 2-17. Independent claims 18, 30, and 38 contain similar limitations not taught or
fairly suggested by the combination of Gasbarro and Niu, and we cannot sustain the
rejections thereof and their dependent claims.
Appeal No. 2002-0590
Application No. 09/213,924
5
CONCLUSION
To summarize, the decision of the examiner to reject claims 1-42 under
35 U.S.C. § 103 is reversed.
REVERSED
ERROL A. KRASS )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
JOSEPH F. RUGGIERO ) APPEALS
Administrative Patent Judge ) AND
) INTERFERENCES
)
)
)
JOSEPH L. DIXON )
Administrative Patent Judge )
JLD:clm
Appeal No. 2002-0590
Application No. 09/213,924
6
JAMES J. MURPHY
5400 RENAISSANCE TOWER
1201 ELM STREET
DALLAS, TX 75270-2199