Infineon Technologies AG

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jul 16, 2020

14802439 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Jul. 16, 2020)

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.
14/802,439 07/17/2015 Dirk Hammerschmidt 42792-0387 3112
38881 7590 07/16/2020
Infineon Technologies AG
c/o Schiff Hardin LLP
1185 Avenue of the Americas
Suite 3000
NEW YORK, NY 10036
EXAMINER
JOSEPH, JAISON
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2633
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/16/2020 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):
lbrutman@schiffhardin.com
patents-NY@schiffhardin.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte DIRK HAMMERSCHMIDT and WOLFGANG SCHERR

Appeal 2019-003025
Application 14/802,439
Technology Center 2600
Before JOSEPH L. DIXON, MAHSHID D. SAADAT, and
BRIAN D. RANGE, Administrative Patent Judges.

RANGE, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–8, 18, and 20. We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.

1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in
37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Infineon
Technologies AG. Appeal Br. 1.
Appeal 2019-003025
Application 14/802,439

2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER2
Appellant describes the invention as relating to a method for detecting
error in a signal. Spec. 1. Appellant explains that in the field of data
transmission, there is a need to balance the desire for a sophisticated digital
encoding scheme with the desire for being able to exchange data with high
throughput and simple implementation and architecture. Id. at 1–2. To
improve this “trade-off between robustness with respect to distortions, a
simple implementation of the architecture and a high throughput of data,”
Appellant discloses a receiver circuit that indicates an error where certain
time periods do not meet a predetermined verification relationship. Id. at 2.
Claim 1 and 18 are the independent claims on appeal. Claim 1 is
illustrative, we reproduce it below with emphasis added to recitations at
issue on appeal:
1. A receiver, comprising:
a receiver circuit to receive a pulse width encoded signal
having a first transition in a first direction, a second transition
after the first transition in a second direction, a third transition
after the second transition in the first direction and a fourth
transition in the second direction of the signal, wherein the
receiver circuit is adapted to determine a first time period
between the first and third transitions and to determine a second
time period between the second and fourth transitions, and
wherein the receiver circuit is adapted to determine a datum
based on at least one of the first time period and the second
time period; and

2 In this Decision, we refer to the Final Office Action dated January 24, 2018
(“Final Act.”), the Appeal Brief filed August 14, 2018 (“Appeal Br.”), the
Examiner’s Answer dated January 10, 2019 (“Ans.”), and the Reply Brief
filed March 13, 2019 (“Reply Br.”).
Appeal 2019-003025
Application 14/802,439

3
wherein the receiver is adapted to indicate an error, if
the determined first and second time periods do not fulfill a
predetermined verification relationship with respect to one
another.

Appeal Br. 8 (Claims App.). Claim 18 recites a method for detecting an error
and includes recitations similar to claim 1. Id. at 9–10.

REFERENCES
The Examiner relies upon the prior art below in rejecting the claims
on appeal:
Name Reference Date
Matsumoto US 5,315,299 May 24, 1994
Hammerschmidt et al.
(“Hammerschmidt”)
US 2010/0002821 A1 Jan. 7, 2010

REJECTIONS
The Examiner maintains (Ans. 3) the following rejections on appeal:
A. Claims 1–7, 18, and 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over
Matsumoto. Final Act. 5.
B. Claim 8 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over Matsumoto in view of
Hammerschmidt. Id. at 7–8.

OPINION
The Examiner has the initial burden of establishing a prima facie case
of obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103. In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445
(Fed. Cir. 1992) (“[T]he examiner bears the initial burden, on review of the
prior art or on any other ground, of presenting a prima facie case of
Appeal 2019-003025
Application 14/802,439

4
unpatentability.”). To establish a prima facie case of obviousness, the
Examiner must show that each and every limitation of the claim is described
or suggested by the prior art or would have been obvious based on the
knowledge of those of ordinary skill in the art or the inferences and creative
steps a person of ordinary skill in the art would have employed. KSR Int’l
Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 417 (2007); In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071,
1074 (Fed. Cir. 1988).
The Examiner rejects independent claims 1 and 18 as obvious over
Matsumoto. Final Act. 5. To resolve the issues before us on appeal, we focus
on the Examiner’s findings and determinations that relate to the error
Appellant identifies.
The Examiner finds that, “Matsumoto disclose[s] the predetermined
verification relationship with respect to one another based on two cycles of
rate transition of rate transition.” Final Act. 5; see also Ans. 5. The Examiner
determines that “adapting the verification relationship based on one rising
edge interval and one falling edge interval of data transition is within the
scope of one of ordinary of skill in the art,” that it would have been obvious
“to use a predetermined verification relationship with respect to each other,”
and that “[t]he motivation or suggestion to do so is to increase the data rate.”
Final Act. 5–6; see also Ans. 5.
Appellant argues that the Examiner has not established that
Matsumoto teaches or suggests claim 1’s recitation “wherein the receiver is
adapted to indicate an error, if the determined first and second time periods
do not fulfill a predetermined verification relationship with respect to one
another.” Appeal Br. 3–6 (emphasis modified). We agree. Claim 1 requires
that the receiver be adapted to evaluate some comparison of the first and
Appeal 2019-003025
Application 14/802,439

5
second time periods. For example, the periods could be compared to
determine whether or not they deviate from each other by more than a given
percentage. Spec. 18–19. Similarly, claim 18 recites, “indicating an error, if
the determined first and second time periods do not fulfill a predetermined
verification relationship with respect to one another.”3
Matsumoto determines various counter values, inputs the output of the
interval measurement counter to a reception decoder circuit, and may
indicate an error based on unexpected counter values. Matsumoto 6:49–7:28;
Figs. 5, 6. The Examiner has not adequately explained, however, how
Matsumo teaches or suggests determining whether two time periods fulfill a
predetermined verification relationship with respect to one another (i.e., by
making some comparison of the two time periods).
The Examiner determines that implementing such a verification would
have been within the skill of a person of ordinary skill in the art and that a
person of skill in the art would have been motivated “to increase the data
rate.” Ans. 5. The Examiner, however, does not cite evidence or provide
sufficient reasoning to adequately support these positions. We agree with
Appellant that the Examiner has not adequately explained why Matsumoto
suggests such a modification. Appeal Br. 5.

3 The Examiner does not presently dispute that claim 18’s recitation
“indicating an error, if the determined first and second time periods do not
fulfill a predetermined verification relationship with respect to one another”
limits claim 18’s recited method. In the event of further prosecution, we
leave for the Examiner to consider whether or not this recitation is limiting
in view of In re Schulhauser, Appeal 2013-007847, 2016 WL 6277792
(PTAB April 28, 2016) (precedential) (holding that, given claim language at
issue requiring condition precedent, certain recitations need not be
performed if condition precedent is not met).
Appeal 2019-003025
Application 14/802,439

6
We, therefore, do not sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of
independent claims 1 and 18. The Examiner’s treatment of the dependent
claims, including use of the Hammerschmidt reference when addressing
claim 8, does not cure this error. Thus, we also do not sustain the Examiner’s
rejection of the dependent claims.

DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1–7, 18, 20 103 Matsumoto 1–7, 18, 20
8 103 Matsumoto,
Hammerschmidt
8
Overall
Outcome
1–8, 18, 20

REVERSED