Ex Parte Zerbe

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 19, 2016

13695245 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 19, 2016)

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.
13/695,245 10/29/2012 Jared L. Zerbe RBS2.P103US 4717
44429 7590 12/21/2016
Peninsula Patent Omim fRamhnsiJ
EXAMINER
203 Woodrow Ave.
Santa Cruz, CA 95060
LUGO, DAVID B
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2631
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/21/2016 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):
lkreisman@peninsulaiplaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte JARED L. ZERBE
Appeal 2016-000506
Application 13/695,245
Technology Center 2600
Before ELENI MANTIS MERCADER, LARRY J. HUME, and
ALEX S. YAP, Administrative Patent Judges.
YAP, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the final rejection
of claims 1-20 and 22-26.2 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
1 According to Appellant, the real party in interest is Rambus, Inc. (App.
Br. 3.)
2 Claim 21 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but
would be allowable if rewritten in independent form. (Final Office Action
(mailed Dec. 26, 2014) (“Final Act.”) 15.)
Appeal 2016-000506
Application 13/695,245
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
Appellant’s disclosed and claimed invention “relates to signaling
systems and more particularly to receiver circuits having edge and data
samplers.” (Spec. 11.) Claim 1 is illustrative, and is reproduced below:
1. An integrated circuit receiver comprising:
a data receiving circuit responsive to a timing signal to
detect a data signal, the timing signal created synchronous with
the data signal;
an edge receiving circuit responsive to the timing signal to
detect a transition of the data signal; and
wherein one of the data or edge receiving circuits
comprises an integrating receiver circuit, and the other of the data
or edge receiving circuits comprises a sampling receiver circuit.
Prior Art and Rejections on Appeal
The following table lists the prior art relied upon by the Examiner as
evidence in rejecting the claims on appeal:
Laturell et al.
(“Laturell”)
Wu et al.
(“Wu”)
Liu
Smith et al.
(“Smith”)
Zerbe et al.
(“Zerbe”)
Stott et al.
(“Stott”)
US 2004/0096013 Al May 20, 2004
US 2004/0165617 Al Aug. 26, 2004
US 6,832,325 B2 Dec. 14, 2004
US 2005/0018760 Al Jan. 27, 2005
US 2006/0170453 Al Aug. 3, 2006
US 2007/0217559 Al Sept. 20, 2007
2
Appeal 2016-000506
Application 13/695,245
Claims 1, 2, 7, 8, and 13 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
being anticipated by Laturell. (See Final Act. 6-7.)
Claims 1-13, 15, 17, 19, 20, and 22 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Zerbe in view of Smith. (See Final Act.
7-11.)
Claims 14, 25, and 26 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Zerbe, in view of Smith, and further in view of
Stott. (See Final Act. 11-12.)
Claims 16 and 23 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Zerbe, in view of Smith, and further in view of Liu. (See
Final Act. 12-13.)
Claims 18 and 24 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Zerbe, in view of Smith, and further in view of Wu. (See
Final Act. 14.)
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellant’s
arguments the Examiner erred. We are not persuaded that the Examiner
erred in rejecting the claims on appeal for the reasons discussed, infra.
Argument One
Laturell Relates to Asynchronous Communications,
Not Synchronous Communications
With respect to claim 1, the Examiner finds Laturell anticipates the
claim, including the “a data receiving circuit responsive to a timing signal to
detect a data signal, the timing signal created synchronous with the data
signal” limitation. (Final Act. 6.) Appellant, however, contends:
3
Appeal 2016-000506
Application 13/695,245
Laturell relates to a conventional clock and data recovery (CDR)
circuit that extracts a clock signal from received data signals. As
explained by Laturell in Paragraph [0006]: “Many high-speed
communications systems use asynchronous communication,
. . . In other words, the extracted clock signal is not created
synchronous with the data signals.
Summarizing, Larsson relates to asynchronous communication,
not synchronous, as claimed in claim 1.
(App. Br. 9, emphasis in original; Reply 4—5.) In other words, Appellant
contends that because Laturell relates to asynchronous communications and
not synchronous communication, Laturell does not disclose the limitation at
issue. Appellant has not persuaded us the Examiner erred. We agree with
the Examiner’s finding:
[C]laim 1 does not recite that the integrated circuit is a
“synchronous integrated circuit” or that the communication is
synchronous communication. Instead, the claim recites “a data
receiving circuit responsive to a timing signal to detect a data
signal, the timing signal created synchronous with the data
signaF (emphasis added). That is, claim 1 merely recites that
the data receiving circuit is responsive to a timing signal, and this
timing signal is created synchronous with the data signal. The
claim does not specify where the timing signal is “created” (i.e.
at the receiver or at a transmitter). Thus, an interpretation of the
timing signal being “created” at the receiver, this timing signal
being synchronous with the data signal, would [disclose] the
aforementioned limitation.
(Ans. 12-13, emphasis in original.) Appellant has not offered persuasive
argument or evidence that the Examiner’s interpretation is either overly
broad or unreasonable. See In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319, 321 (Fed. Cir. 1989)
(holding that, although the claims are interpreted in light of the
Specification, limitations from the Specification are not read into the
claims). In the Reply Brief, Appellant further contends the timing signal of
4
Appeal 2016-000506
Application 13/695,245
Laturell (i.e., the MIXO signal) not “synchronous with the incoming data”
because the MIXO signal is twice the rate of the input data. (Reply 5.)
According to Appellant, it “is well-known in the art [that] a timing signal is
synchronous with another signal when it not only matches phase, but also
rate,” therefore, Appellant contends Laturell fails to disclose the limitation at
issue. (Reply 5.) We again decline Appellant’s invitation to read further
limitations into the claim. Importantly, Appellant’s assertion in this regard
is mere attorney argument, a conclusory statement, which is unsupported by
factual evidence. Thus, this argument is also entitled to little probative
value. In reLovin, 652 F.3d 1349, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2011); In re Geisler, 116
F.3d 1465, 1470 (Fed. Cir. 1997); In re De Blauwe, 736 F.2d 699, 705 (Fed.
Cir. 1984). Furthermore, we agree with and adopt the Examiner’s finding
regarding this issue. (Final Act. 6; Ans. 12-14.)
For the foregoing reasons, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in
rejecting claim 1 such that we sustain the 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) rejection of
claim 1. Appellant does not make any separate, substantive patentability
arguments regarding dependent claims 2, 7, 8, and 13, but instead rely solely
on their arguments with respect to claim 1. Therefore, we also sustain the 35
U.S.C. § 102(b) rejection of claims 2, 7, 8, and 13.
Argument Two
The Same Timing Signal is Not Used
for Detecting a Data Signal and a Transition of the Data Signal
The Examiner also finds the combination of Zerbe and Smith teaches
or suggests claim 1. (Final Act. 7-8.) Specifically, the Examiner finds
Zerbe teaches or suggests the following limitations: “a data receiving circuit
responsive to a timing signal to detect a data signal, ... an edge receiving
5
Appeal 2016-000506
Application 13/695,245
circuit responsive to the timing signal to detect a transition of the data
signal.” {Id. at 7.) Appellant contends the same timing signal in Zerbe is
not used for detecting a data signal and a transition of the data signal
Figure 23A of Zerbe is reproduced below.
Figure 23A depicts “an alternate embodiment of an adjustment system to set
the timing of each receiver in a system having multiple integrating
receivers.” (Zerbe 174.)
According to Appellant:
Zerbe’s integrating receiver 334 is not responsive to the same
timing signal that drives the two sampling sampling [sic] circuits
(phase sense amplifier 862-1 and data sense amplifier 864-1).
For at least this reason, claim 1 distinguishes over the cited
portions of Zerbe. Moreover, as shown in FIG. 23B of Zerbe,
the two sense amplifier circuits appear to detect respective
leading and trailing transitions of the data signal, and not the data
signal itself. For at least this reason, claim 1 distinguishes over
Zerbe.
(App. Br. 13, emphasis added.) The Examiner responds noting that:
[T]he portions of the Zerbe reference considered to correspond
with the claimed “data receiving circuit” are at least elements
6
Appeal 2016-000506
Application 13/695,245
334 and 864-1 of Fig. 23 A. These elements, when considered
together as a “data receiving circuit” are considered to be
“responsive to a timing signal” (i.e. Receive clock) as the receive
clock is shown to be provided to data sense amplifier 864-1
portion of the “data receiving circuit, ” where the data receiving
circuit is considered to “detect a data signal[.]”
(Ans. 14-15, emphasis added.) In other words, Appellant is not pointing to
all the elements in Figure 23 A for the “data receiving circuit.” Appellant
does not reply and has not persuaded us the Examiner erred.
For the foregoing reasons, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in
rejecting claim 1 such that we sustain the 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of
claim 1. Appellant does not make any separate, substantive patentability
arguments regarding independent claims 15 and 22 and dependent claims 2—
14, 16—20, and 23—26, but instead rely solely on their arguments with respect
to claim 1. Therefore, we also sustain the 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejections of
claims 2—14, 16—20, and 23—26.
DECISION
We affirm the decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1-20
and 22-26.
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). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(l)(iv).
AFFIRMED
7