Ex Parte Yeluri et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jul 31, 2008

10197484 (B.P.A.I. Jul. 31, 2008)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE

__________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
__________

Ex parte SHARADA YELURI, KEVIN CLARK, SHAHRIAR
ILISLAMLOO, and CHUNG LAU
__________

Appeal 2008-0718
Application 10/197,484
Technology Center 2100
__________

Decided: July 31, 2008
__________

Before JAMES D. THOMAS, ST. JOHN COURTENAY III, and
THU A. DANG, Administrative Patent Judges.

COURTENAY, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the
Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-30. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b).
We AFFIRM IN PART.

Appeal 2008-0718
Application 10/197,484

2
THE INVENTION
The disclosed invention relates generally to data transfer (Spec. 1).
More particularly, Appellants’ invention is directed to systems and methods
for improving traffic bandwidth (Id.)
Independent claim 1 is illustrative:
1. A transmit interface, comprising:
a data path configured to:

receive data in a data stream, and temporarily store
the data;

a scheduler configured to partition the data into
bursts, the partitioning of the data into the bursts causing
one or more idles to occur in at least one of the bursts;

merge logic configured to selectively pack the data
to remove the one or more idles from the at least one
burst; and

transmitter logic configured to transmit the
selectively packed data.

THE REFERENCES
The Examiner relies upon the following references as evidence in
support of the rejections:
Boock US 6,891,845 B2 May 10, 2005
Elabd US 6,526,462 B1 Feb. 25, 2003

THE REJECTIONS
1. Claims 1-9 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as being
unpatentable over Boock in view of Elabd.
Appeal 2008-0718
Application 10/197,484

3

2. Claims 10-30 rejected under 35 U.S.C. §102(e) as being
anticipated by Boock.

CLAIM GROUPING
When multiple claims subject to the same ground of rejection are
argued as a group by appellant, the Board may select a single claim
from the group of claims that are argued together to decide the appeal
with respect to the group of claims as to the ground of rejection on the
basis of the selected claim alone. Notwithstanding any other
provision of this paragraph, the failure of appellant to separately argue
claims which appellant has grouped together shall constitute a waiver
of any argument that the Board must consider the patentability of any
grouped claim separately.

37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii) (2006).1

Regarding the obviousness rejection of claims 1-9 that stand rejected
as being unpatentable over Boock in view of Elabd, Appellants argue claim
1 separately (Br. 5-9), claims 2-4 as a group (Br. 9-10), claims 5 and 7-9 as a
group (Br. 11-12), and claim 6 separately (Br. 12-14). Therefore, we
consider claim 1, representative claim 2, representative claim 5, and claim 6
in seriatim.
Regarding the anticipation rejection of claims 10-30 that stand
rejected as being anticipated by Boock, Appellants argue claims 10 and 11
as a group (Br. 15-16), claim 12 separately (Br. 16-18 ), claims 13, 18, and
20-25 as a group (Br. 18-19), claims 14 and 16 as a group (Br. 19), each of

1 We cite to the version of the Code of Federal Regulations in effect at the
time of the Appeal Brief. The current version includes the same rules.

Appeal 2008-0718
Application 10/197,484

4
claims 15, 17, 19, and 26 separately (Br. 20-25), and claims 27-30 as a group
(Br. 25-28). Therefore, we consider representative claim 10, claim 12,
representative claim 13, representative claim 14, claim 15, claim 17, claim
19, claim 26, and representative claim 27 in seriatim.
Rather than repeat the positions of the Appellants and the Examiner,
reference is made to the Brief (no Reply Brief has been filed) for Appellants’
positions, and to the Answer for the Examiner’s positions.

FINDINGS OF FACT
The following findings of fact (FF) are supported by at least a
preponderance of the evidence:
1. Boock teaches that Ethernet standards set forth that idles can be used
to compensate for clock rate discrepancies, where such standards also
set forth the permissible locations and structures for idles that are used
in a packet (col. 1, ll. 29-32).
2. Boock teaches using a buffer to write data in at one clock rate and
read data out at another clock rate, while compensating for the rate
variations using idles (col. 1, ll. 12-15).
3. Boock teaches that the insertion of idles starts upon receiving an
underflow warning control signal from the FIFO buffer (Boock, col.
3, ll. 51-58).
4. Boock teaches a plurality of data streams (i.e., a data stream having
four eight bit lanes, where each lane is itself a data stream) (Boock,
col. 3, ll. 10-12).

Appeal 2008-0718
Application 10/197,484

5
Obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103
PRINCIPLES OF LAW
“What matters is the objective reach of the claim. If the claim
extends to what is obvious, it is invalid under § 103.” KSR Int’l Co. v.
Teleflex, Inc., 127 S. Ct. 1727, 1742 (2007). To be nonobvious, an
improvement must be “more than the predictable use of prior art elements
according to their established functions.” Id. at 1740. Appellants have the
burden on appeal to the Board to demonstrate error in the Examiner’s
position. See In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 985-86 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (“On
appeal to the Board, an applicant can overcome a rejection [under § 103] by
showing insufficient evidence of prima facie obviousness or by rebutting the
prima facie case with evidence of secondary indicia of nonobviousness.”)
(quoting In re Rouffet, 149 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 1998)). Therefore,
we look to Appellants’ Brief to show error in the proffered prima facie case.

ANALYSIS
Independent claim 1
We consider the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1 as being
unpatentable over Boock in view of Elabd. Appellants present the following
principal argument on appeal:
Appellants contend that neither Boock nor Elabd teaches or suggests a
scheduler configured to partition data into bursts, where the partitioning of
the data into the bursts causes one or more idles to occur in at least one of
the bursts, as required by the language of claim 1 (Br. 7).
Appeal 2008-0718
Application 10/197,484

6
“[T]he PTO gives claims their ‘broadest reasonable interpretation.’”
In re Bigio, 381 F.3d 1320, 1324 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (quoting In re Hyatt, 211
F.3d 1367, 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2000)).
Here, we do not find, and Appellants do not indicate, an explicit
definition of the term “burst” in the Specification. Therefore, we broadly
but reasonably construe the claim term “burst” as a partitioning of data.
Likewise, we do not find, and Appellants do not indicate, an explicit
definition of the term “scheduler” in the Specification. Therefore, we
broadly but reasonably construe the claim term “scheduler” as any device
and/or program that performs an ordering function.
Given the above claim construction, we see no error in the Examiner’s
broad reading of the claimed “scheduler” on Boock’s FIFO (implemented as
DPRAM 101), as shown within clock adaptation block 75 (Fig. 3). We note
that a FIFO queue designates an order of data (First In, First Out).
Therefore, we find a FIFO performs an ordering or scheduling function.
Regarding the claimed function of “partitioning of the data into the
bursts causing one or more idles to occur in at least one of the bursts,”
(claim 1), we note that Boock teaches that the insertion of idles starts upon
receiving an underflow warning control signal from the FIFO buffer (i.e.,
scheduler), as follows (FF 3):

Appeal 2008-0718
Application 10/197,484

7
In the idles insertion module 79, data words can be analyzed in
blocks and, if necessary, idles can be inserted into each block.
The module then rebuilds the blocks under the conditions
described for 10 Gb Ethernet in the proposed draft IEEE
standard 802.3ae. The insertion of idles starts upon receiving an
underflow warning control signal from the FIFO buffer.

(Boock, col. 3, ll. 51-58).

Thus, we find that Boock’s FIFO causes one or more idles to
occur in at least one of the bursts by providing an underflow warning
control to idles insertion module 79 (Boock, Fig. 2) (FF 3). We
further find that the aforementioned insertion of idles partitions data
into bursts, as claimed (Boock, col. 3, ll. 51-58). Accordingly, we
find that at least Boock alone teaches and/or suggests “a scheduler
configured to partition the data into bursts, the partitioning of the data
into the bursts causing one or more idles to occur in at least one of the
bursts,” as claimed.
On this record, we conclude that Appellants have not sustained the
requisite burden on appeal in providing arguments or evidence persuasive of
error in the Examiner’s rejection of independent claim 1 as being
unpatentable over Boock in view of Elabd.

Appeal 2008-0718
Application 10/197,484

8
Dependent claims 2-4
We consider the Examiner’s rejection of claims 2-4 as being
unpatentable over Boock in view of Elabd. Appellants present arguments
directed to the obviousness rejection of these claims as a single group.
Pursuant to our authority under 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii), we select claim
2 as the representative claim.
Appellants contend that Boock does not teach or suggest that the data
lanes or the data rate lines correspond to a plurality of streams, as claimed.
Instead, Boock discloses a single data stream at column 3, lines 8-13 (Br.
10).
We disagree. We find Boock teaches a plurality of streams (i.e., a
data stream having four eight bit lanes, where each lane is itself a stream)
(Boock, col. 3, ll. 10-12) (FF 4).
Appellants further contend that Boock does not teach or suggest a
plurality of schedulers corresponding to the plurality of data paths, as
claimed (Br. 10).
In response, we note that the secondary Elabd reference expressly
teaches “scheduling schemes” (col. 8, ll. 19-20). Therefore, we find that the
combination of Boock and Elabd at least suggests the claimed plurality of
schedulers corresponding to the plurality of data paths.
On this record, we conclude that Appellants have not sustained the
requisite burden on appeal in providing arguments or evidence persuasive of
error in the Examiner’s rejection of dependent claim 2 (and claims 3 and 4
that fall therewith) as being unpatentable over Boock in view of Elabd.

Appeal 2008-0718
Application 10/197,484

9
Dependent claims 5 and 7-9
We consider the Examiner’s rejection of claims 5 and 7-9 as being
unpatentable over Boock in view of Elabd. Appellants present arguments
directed to the obviousness rejection of these claims as a single group.
Pursuant to our authority under 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii), we select claim
5 as the representative claim.
Appellants contend that neither Boock nor Elabd teaches or suggests
one or more multiplexers configured to receive the bursts from the scheduler
and selectively pack data in the at least one burst, as required by the
language of claim 5 (Br. 11).
We disagree. We note that the Examiner has read the claimed
scheduler on Boock’s FIFO (DPRAM 101). As shown in Figure 3,
Multiplexer (MUX) 104 receives data (i.e., data bursts) from the FIFO
(DPRAM 101, data out). We find that since the data coming from Boock’s
FIFO (DPRAM 101) is ordered, it is selectively packed in the at least one
burst (i.e., a data partition delineated by idles), as claimed.
On this record, we conclude that Appellants have not sustained
the requisite burden on appeal in providing arguments or evidence
persuasive of error in the Examiner’s rejection of dependent claim 5
(and claims 7-9 that fall therewith) as being unpatentable over Boock
in view of Elabd.
Dependent claim 6
We consider the Examiner’s rejection of claim 6 as being
unpatentable over Boock in view of Elabd.

Appeal 2008-0718
Application 10/197,484

10
Appellants contend that neither Boock nor Elabd teaches or suggests
an asynchronous buffer that is written at a first frequency and read at a
second frequency, where the first frequency is faster than the second
frequency, as required by claim 6 (Br. 13).
In response, we find no error in the Examiner’s reasoning set forth on
pages 5 and 6 of the Answer regarding the different read and write clock
rates as discussed by Boock in column 4, lines 31-37. Boock expressly
teaches that the DPRAM is a two-sided or dual ported buffer (col. 4, ll. 9-
10). Boock further expressly teaches different read and write clock rates,
such as caused by variations of +/-200 ppm in the basic clock rate of 156.25
MHz:
The write control block 103 receives the external XGXS clock
signal 74 and the read control block 105 receives the different
external PMA clock signal 80 both set to the clock rate of
156.25 MHz +/-200 ppm. The DPRAM, accordingly, can be
read at a slightly different speed than it is written. The
read/write controls discussed below prevent any collisions
between the two clock domains.

(Boock, col. 4, ll. 31-37).

While fully recognizing that the “asynchronous buffer” is a discrete
component that is separate and distinct from the “scheduler,” as claimed, we
nevertheless find that Boock’s teachings clearly evidence that such a
functionally complicated DPRAM two-sided or dual ported FIFO buffer
(asynchronous buffer) would have necessarily included separate components
Appeal 2008-0718
Application 10/197,484

11

capable of being written at a first frequency and read at a second frequency,
where the first frequency is faster than the second (FF 2). 2
On this record, we conclude that Appellants have not sustained the
requisite burden on appeal in providing arguments or evidence persuasive of
error in the Examiner’s rejection of dependent claim 6 as being unpatentable
over Boock in view of Elabd.

PRINCIPLES OF LAW
Anticipation under 35 U.S.C. § 102
In rejecting claims under 35 U.S.C. § 102, “[a] single prior art
reference that discloses, either expressly or inherently, each limitation of a
claim invalidates that claim by anticipation.” Perricone v. Medicis Pharm.
Corp., 432 F.3d 1368, 1375-76 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (citation omitted).

Claims 10 and 11
We consider the Examiner’s rejection of claims 10 and 11 as being
anticipated by Boock. Appellants present arguments directed to the
anticipation rejection of these claims as a single group. Pursuant to our
authority under 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii), we select claim 10 as the
representative claim.

2 Courts should “take account of the inferences and creative steps that a
person of ordinary skill in the art would employ.” KSR, 127 S. Ct. at 1741.
Appeal 2008-0718
Application 10/197,484

12
Appellants contend that Boock does not disclose means for
partitioning data from a plurality of data streams into bursts, the partitioning
causing one or more idles to occur in at least one of the bursts, as claimed
(Br. 15).
In response, we have found supra that Boock alone discloses each of
these limitations (see discussion of claim 1 above).
Appellants further contend that Boock does not disclose means for
multiplexing the burst from the plurality of data streams, as claimed (Br. 16).
Referencing Boock’s Figure 3, we find that the multiplexer 104
multiplexes data from the plurality of data streams that appear (in time
sequence) at the “data in” (102) line to the DPRAM, when it selects between
the data appearing on the “data out” (106) line that is connected to one
multiplexer input, or the inserted error data that is provided at the upper
input (/LF/ 106) line to multiplexer 104 (Boock, col. 4, ll. 56-62). We
acknowledge that this reading of the claim on the Boock reference does not
comport with Appellants’ invention as disclosed. However, we find the
broad language of claim 10 reads on the Boock reference, as indicated. See
E-Pass Techs., Inc. v. 3Com Corp., 343 F.3d 1364, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2003)
(Limitations appearing in the specification but not recited in the claim are
not read into the claim). Patentability is based upon the claims. “It is the
claims that measure the invention.” SRI Int’l v. Matsushita Elec. Corp. of
America, 775 F.2d 1107, 1121 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (en banc).

Appeal 2008-0718
Application 10/197,484

13
On this record, we conclude that Appellants have not sustained the
requisite burden on appeal in providing arguments or evidence persuasive of
error in the Examiner’s rejection of independent claim 10 (and dependent
claim 11 that falls therewith) as being anticipated by Boock.

Dependent claim 12
We consider the Examiner’s rejection of claim 12 as being anticipated
by Boock.
Appellants contend that Boock does not disclose the recited means for
packing the at least one burst with data from a different one of the plurality
of data streams (Br. 17).
In the rejection, the Examiner states that Boock discloses packing the
at least one burst with data from a different one of the plurality of data
streams (see column 3, lines 8-25, i.e., consolidating four 8 bit lanes
“inherits” packing the at least one burst with data from a different data
streams). (Ans. 8). In the response to arguments section of the Answer, the
Examiner states that “consolidating data lanes into pairs of single data must
have packed all data traveling on [the] data lanes.” (Ans. 14, ¶1).
After considering the record before us, we do not see where the
Examiner has pointed to any specific structure in the Boock reference that
anticipates the claimed means for packing by performing the recited function
expressly or inherently. On this record, we conclude that Appellants have
met the burden of showing the Examiner erred in rejecting of dependent
claim 12 as being anticipated by Boock.

Appeal 2008-0718
Application 10/197,484

14
Claims 13, 18, and 20-25
We consider the Examiner’s rejection of claims 13, 18, and 20-25 as
being anticipated by Boock. Appellants present arguments directed to the
anticipation rejection of these claims as a single group. Pursuant to our
authority under 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii), we select claim 13 as the
representative claim.
Appellants contend that Boock does not disclose partitioning data
from a data stream into bursts, the partitioning causing one or more idles to
occur in at least one of the bursts, as claimed (Br. 18).
In response, we have found supra that Boock alone discloses each of
these limitations (see discussion of claim 1 above).
On this record, we conclude that Appellants have not sustained the
requisite burden on appeal in providing arguments or evidence persuasive of
error in the Examiner’s rejection of claim 13 (and claims 18, and 20-25 that
fall therewith) as being anticipated by Boock.

Claims 14 and 16
We consider the Examiner’s rejection of claims 14 and 16 as being
anticipated by Boock. Appellants present arguments directed to the
anticipation rejection of these claims as a single group. Pursuant to our
authority under 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii), we select claim 14 as the
representative claim.

Appeal 2008-0718
Application 10/197,484

15
Appellants contend that Boock does not teach or suggest that the data
lanes or the data rate lines correspond to a plurality of streams, as claimed.
Instead, Boock discloses a single data stream at column 3, lines 10-13.
(Br. 19).
We disagree. We have found supra that Boock discloses a plurality of
streams (i.e., a data stream having four eight bit lanes, where each lane is
itself a stream) (Boock, col. 3, ll. 10-12). See the rejection of claim 2
discussed above.
On this record, we conclude that Appellants have not sustained the
requisite burden on appeal in providing arguments or evidence persuasive of
error in the Examiner’s rejection of claim 14 (and claim 16 that falls
therewith) as being anticipated by Boock.

Dependent claim 15
We consider the Examiner’s rejection of claim 15 as being anticipated
by Boock.
Appellants contend that Boock does not disclose or suggest
multiplexing bursts from different ones of the plurality of data streams to
create multiplexed data streams (Br. 20).
We disagree. To the contrary, we find Boock’s multiplexer 104
multiplexes bursts from different ones of the plurality of data streams to
create multiplexed data streams, as claimed, where the first stream is the
“data out” line 106 and the second stream is the stream of local fault words
(errors) that are selected by control signal 110, as shown in Boock’s Figure 3
and described at col. 4, ll. 56-62.
Appeal 2008-0718
Application 10/197,484

16
On this record, we conclude that Appellants have not sustained the
requisite burden on appeal in providing arguments or evidence persuasive of
error in the Examiner’s rejection of dependent claim 15 as being anticipated
by Boock.
Dependent claim 17
We consider the Examiner’s rejection of claim 17 as being anticipated
by Boock.
Appellants contend that Boock does not disclose packing the at least
one burst with data from a different one of the plurality of data streams (Br.
17).
While Boock discloses removing idles by idles removal module 73
(column 3, l. 40), we see no express nor inherent disclosure of packing the at
least one burst with data from a different one of the plurality of data streams,
as claimed. Regarding the Examiner’s apparent finding of inherency, we
note that “[i]nherency … may not be established by probabilities or
possibilities. The mere fact that a certain thing may result from a given set
of circumstances is not sufficient.” In re Robertson, 169 F.3d 743, 745,
(Fed. Cir. 1999) (internal citations omitted). On this record, we conclude
that Appellants have met the burden of showing the Examiner erred in
rejecting of dependent claim 17 as being anticipated by Boock.
Dependent claim 19
We consider the Examiner’s rejection of claim 19 as being anticipated
by Boock.
Appellants contend that Boock does not disclose an asynchronous
buffer that is written at a first frequency and read at a second frequency,
Appeal 2008-0718
Application 10/197,484

17
where the first frequency is faster than the second frequency, as required by
claim 19. (Br. 22).
In response, we find no error in the Examiner’s reasoning regarding
the different read and write clock rates as described by Boock at column 4,
lines 31-37. Boock discloses that the DPRAM is a two-sided or dual ported
(FIFO) buffer (col. 4, ll. 9-10). See also our previous discussion above
regarding claim 6 and FF 2.
Unlike claim 6 discussed above, here no scheduler is claimed in base
independent claim 13 which is directed to a method (claim 1 recites a
“scheduler,” claim 6 depends from claim 5 that depends from claim 1). We
note that Boock’s FIFO DPRAM is shown operatively coupled in Figure 2
to idles removal module 73, consistent with the limitations of claim 18,
where claim 18 depends from independent claim 13. Claim 19 depends from
claim 18.
On this record, we conclude that Appellants have not sustained the
requisite burden on appeal in providing arguments or evidence persuasive of
error in the Examiner’s rejection of dependent claim 19 as being anticipated
by Boock.
Independent claim 26
We consider the Examiner’s rejection of independent claim 26 as
being anticipated by Boock.
Appellants contend that Boock does not disclose a network device that
comprises a switch fabric and a plurality of forwarding engines coupled to
the switch fabric. (Br. 24).
Appeal 2008-0718
Application 10/197,484

18
In response, we do not find, and Appellants do not indicate, an
explicit definition of the term “switch fabric” in the Specification.
Therefore, we see no error in the Examiner’s broad but reasonable reading of
the claimed “switch fabric” on Boock’s switch 11, as shown in Figure 1
coupled to a plurality of PCS (Physical Coding Sublayer) modules 45-47
(i.e., forwarding engines).
Appellants further contend that Boock does not disclose a packet
forwarding engine that is configured to, among other things, partition
packets from a plurality of packet streams into bursts, the partitioning
causing at least one of the bursts to be less than completely filled with data,
as recited in claim 26. (Br. 24).
In response, we note that PCS modules 45-47 (i.e., forwarding
engines) are each shown in expanded form by Boock in Figure 2 as PCS
module 71. (see also Boock, col. 3, ll. 36-40). We have broadly but
reasonably construed the claim term “burst” as a partitioning of data (see our
discussion of claim 1 above).
Regarding the claimed function of “partition[ing] packets from a
plurality of packet streams into bursts, the partitioning causing at least one of
the bursts to be less than completely filled with data,” (claim 26), we refer
Appellants to our discussion of claim 1 supra regarding idles insertion
module 79 (which is a component of PCS module 71), where data words can
be analyzed in blocks and, if necessary, idles can be inserted into each block
(i.e., causing bursts to be less than completely filled with data) (Boock, col.
3, ll. 51-58).
Appeal 2008-0718
Application 10/197,484

19
On this record, we conclude that Appellants have not sustained the
requisite burden on appeal in providing arguments or evidence persuasive of
error in the Examiner’s rejection of independent claim 26 as being
anticipated by Boock.
Claims 27-30
We consider the Examiner’s rejection of independent claim 27 and
dependent claims 28-30 as being anticipated by Boock.
Appellants contend that Boock does not disclose means for receiving
data on a wide, slow bus and means for transmitting bursts including the at
least one burst on a narrow, fast bus. (Br. 25).
The Examiner disagrees. The Examiner declines to give all the
preamble limitations of independent claim 27 patentable weight, as the
Examiner considers the recitation of a “wide, slow bus and a narrow, fast
bus” as a statement of intended purpose. (Ans. 19, last paragraph).
Significantly, the Examiner also declines to give the recited “means for
transmitting” (found in the body of claim 27) patentable weight as set forth
in the last paragraph of page 19 of the Answer.
When limitations in the body of the claim rely upon and derive
antecedent basis from the preamble, then the preamble may act as a
necessary component of the claimed invention. See, e.g., Electro Sci. Indus.
v. Dynamic Details, Inc., 307 F.3d 1343, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2002); Rapoport v.
Dement, 254 F.3d 1053, 1059 (Fed. Cir. 2001); Pitney Bowes, 182 F.3d at
1306. Any terminology in the preamble that limits the structure of the
Appeal 2008-0718
Application 10/197,484

20
claimed invention must be treated as a claim limitation. See Corning Glass
Works v. Sumitomo Elec. U.S.A., Inc., 868 F.2d 1251, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 1989);
Pac-Tec Inc. v. Amerace Corp., 903 F.2d 796, 801 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Here, we conclude that the Examiner has erred by not properly
considering as limitations the claimed “[a] transmitter” recited in the
preamble of independent claim 27 and the “means for transmitting” recited
in the body of claim 27. In particular, the transmitter recited in the preamble
(as being connected between the “wide, slow bus and a narrow, fast bus”) is
a structural element. Moreover, the recited buses are also structural
elements that must be treated as claim limitations. See Corning Glass Works
at 1257. Lastly, the transmitter limitation is not directly addressed by the
Examiner in the rejection of claim 27 (Ans. 12).
On this record, we conclude that Appellants have met the burden of
showing the Examiner erred in rejecting independent claim 27 (and
dependent claims 28-30 that stand therewith) as being anticipated by Boock.

CONCLUSION OF LAW
Based on the findings of facts and analysis above, we conclude
Appellants have not met their burden of showing that the Examiner erred in
rejecting claims 1-9 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) for obviousness.
Based on the findings of facts and analysis above, we conclude
Appellants have not met their burden of showing that the Examiner erred in
rejecting claims 10, 11, 13-16, and 18-26 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) for
anticipation.
Appeal 2008-0718
Application 10/197,484

21
However, we conclude that Appellants have met their burden of
showing that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 12, 17, and 27-30 under
35 U.S.C. § 102(e) for anticipation.
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-11, 13-16, and
18-26.
We reverse the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 12, 17, and
27-30.
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).

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

pgc

HARRITY SNYDER, LLP
11350 Random Hills Road
SUITE 600
FAIRFAX VA 22030