Siemens Aktiengesellschaft

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jan 25, 2021

2019004600 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 25, 2021)

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.
13/906,035 05/30/2013 Michael Armbruster 03869.117494 1898
162436 7590 01/25/2021
Slayden Grubert Beard PLLC
401 Congress Avenue
Suite 1650
Austin, TX 78701
EXAMINER
PREVAL, LIONEL
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2416
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
01/25/2021 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):
dallen@sgbfirm.com
patent@sgbfirm.com
trosson@sgbfirm.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte MICHAEL ARMBRUSTER, LUDGER FIEGE,
JOHANNES RIEDL, THOMAS SCHMID, and ANDREAS ZIRKLER
____________

Appeal 2019-004600
Application 13/906,035
Technology Center 2400
____________

Before KARA L. SZPONDOWSKI, SCOTT B. HOWARD, and
STEVEN M. AMUNDSON, Administrative Patent Judges.

SZPONDOWSKI, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
Final Rejection of claims 1, 5–8, and 10–31, which constitute all of the
claims pending in this application. 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 Siemens
Aktiengesellschaft. Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal 2019-004600
Application 13/906,035

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant’s invention relates to “a network mechanism, a network
arrangement and a method for operating a network arrangement,” where the
“network mechanism and network arrangement are in particular suitable in a
switched network environment, such as, for example an Ethernet
environment, e.g., to establish a secure data network.” Spec. 1. Claim 1,
reproduced below, is representative of the claimed subject matter:
1. A network mechanism for a communication network,
comprising:
a first control mechanism,
a second control mechanism,
a first physical port assigned to the first control mechanism
and a second physical port assigned to the second control
mechanism,
wherein the first physical port and the second physical port
are configured to receive data from a transmission medium and
to send data, and
wherein both:
transmitted data from the first control mechanism are
coupled by a first internal transmit connector of the first control
mechanism via the first physical port into the transmission
medium and received data arriving at the second physical port
are routed to a first internal receive connector of the first control
mechanism so that data received at the second physical port is
not routed to the second control mechanism, and
received data arriving at the first physical port are routed
to a second internal receive connector of the second control
mechanism and transmitted data from the second control
mechanism are coupled by a second internal transmit connector
of the second control mechanism via the second physical port
into the transmission medium so that data received at the first
physical port is not routed to the first control mechanism.
Appeal 2019-004600
Application 13/906,035

3
REJECTION ON APPEAL
Claims 1, 5–8, and 10–31 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Hao (US 2011/0026411 A1; published Feb. 3, 2011) and
Buchanan et al. (US 8,004,961 B1; issued Aug. 23, 2011) (“Buchanan”).
Final Act. 4.
ANALYSIS
Issue: Did the Examiner err in finding that the combination of Hao
and Buchanan teaches or suggests
transmitted data from the first control mechanism are coupled by
a first internal transmit connector of the first control mechanism
via the first physical port into the transmission medium and
received data arriving at the second physical port are routed to a
first internal receive connector of the first control mechanism so
that data received at the second physical port is not routed to the
second control mechanism, and
received data arriving at the first physical port are routed to a
second internal receive connector of the second control
mechanism and transmitted data from the second control
mechanism are coupled by a second internal transmit connector
of the second control mechanism via the second physical port
into the transmission medium so that data received at the first
physical port is not routed to the first control mechanism
as recited in independent claim 1 and commensurately recited in
independent claims 25 and 27?
The Examiner relies on the combination of Hao and Buchanan to
teach the foregoing limitations. Final Act. 5-6; Ans. 5–11. Specifically, the
Examiner finds Hao’s controllers coupled to channel selection multiplexer
via media independent interfaces teach that the received data at a
first/second physical port are routed to a second/first internal receive
connector of the second/first control mechanism. Final Act. 5 (citing Hao
Appeal 2019-004600
Application 13/906,035

4
¶¶ 22–23); see Ans. 5–10. According to the Examiner, Hao’s hub “has a
multiplexer 260, which may connect/route data from either port 1 or port 2
to controllers A (220) or B (221) of the hub.” Id. at 5. However, the
Examiner finds “Hao does not expressly disclose data received at the first
port is not routed to the first control and data received at the second physical
port routed to the second control mechanism, which may be accomplished
using the multiplexer, and switches.” Id. (emphasis omitted). Therefore, the
Examiner relies on Buchanan’s internal datapaths and multiplexers
selectively connecting inputs to teach the claimed “so that data received at
the second physical port is not routed to the second control mechanism” and
“so that data received at the first physical port is not routed to the first
control mechanism.” Final Act. 6 (citing Buchanan, col. 3, ll. 28–36); see
Ans. 6–11. According to the Examiner, Buchanan’s “internal datapaths and
multiplexers that selectively connect inputs and outputs to either Port A or
Port B” teach “that data received at the first port may not be routed to the
first control and data received at the second physical port may not be routed
to the second control mechanism.” Ans. 6.
Appellant contends that the proposed combination of Hao and
Buchanan “has multiplexers with the ability to generally route signals
between either physical port and either control mechanism” but does not
“teach the specific mixed-crossover routing recited in the claims.” Appeal
Br. 14; see id. at 17. Specifically, Appellant argues that Hao’s “transmit
output of the first and second control mechanisms are routed to the first and
second ports,” but that Hao’s “received input of the first and second control
mechanisms are routed from the first and second ports, respectively, in direct
contradiction to the claims.” Id. at 15 (citing Hao, Fig. 3). Appellant also
Appeal 2019-004600
Application 13/906,035

5
argues that Buchanan teaches that data is “simply rerouted from another
port,” and does not teach “that the data to be sent out a first port originates
from a respective first MAC while data received an opposite, second port is
routed to the same, first MAC.” Id. at 16 (citing Buchanan, Fig. 4).
According to Appellant, “all of the examples . . . in the cited references”
teach that “data is routed in and out of the same port for a given node,” and
the rejection “ignores the outbound counterpart of data through a different
port from which the data was received.” Reply Br. 7.
We are persuaded by Appellant’s arguments. Hao generally discloses
“network nodes” that each include “a first communication channel and a
second communication channel,” wherein the “first communication channel
includes a first physical layer transceiver (PHY device) and the second
communication channel includes a second PHY device,” and the “network
nodes are coupled in a dual ring-type topology.” Hao, code (57). Figure 2
of Hao, depicted below, shows a block diagram of an exemplary
embodiment of a dual-port hub 200.
Appeal 2019-004600
Application 13/906,035

6

Figure 2 shows dual-port hub 200, which includes “first processor 220,
second processor 221,” and “two independent physical layer transceivers
[“PHY”] 206 and 208 coupled to two connector ports 210 and 212,
respectively.” Hao ¶¶ 21, 22. PHY devices 206 and 208 include receivers
238 and 224, respectively, and transmitters 240 and 246, respectively. Id.
¶ 23. PHY devices 206 and 208 are coupled to multiplexer 260 via media
independent interfaces 250 and 252. Id. Hao describes that data packets
may be transmitted via paths 150 or 160. Id. ¶¶ 24–25.
Buchanan generally discloses a “multi-port Ethernet Physical (PHY)
layer device” that “includes multiplexed datapaths and control logic such
that each transmit data connection for a port may be mapped to any
combination of the transmit data connection” and “each received data
connection for a port may independently be mapped to an [sic] combination
of the received data connections,” that “may be configured to operate in
Appeal 2019-004600
Application 13/906,035

7
normal and port swap modes.” Buchanan, code (57). Figure 1 of Buchanan,
depicted below, shows a high-level block diagram of a system implementing
a multi-port Ethernet physical layer, according to an embodiment of the
invention. Buchanan, 2:22–26.

Figure 1 shows Ethernet PHY device 103, which includes two ports, 104 and
105. Buchanan, 2:63–64. “Each port 104 and 105 also includes a transmit
(TX) input 108 and 109, respectively, for receiving data to be transmitted
over switched transmission medium 102 and a receive (RX) output 110 and
111, respectively, for forwarding data received on switched transmission
medium 102.” Id. at 3:8–12. Buchanan further describes that “[i]nternal
datapaths and multiplexers 118-119 selectively connect input 112 to either
of inputs 108 and 109, and similarly selectively connect input 113 to either
of inputs 108 and 109 . . . The internal datapaths are directed to the desired
locations through the network of multiplexers 116-119, and each datapath
Appeal 2019-004600
Application 13/906,035

8
can be individually assigned.” Id. at 3:28–36. As an example, “data
transmitted from MAC A may lead out through Port A 104, Port B 105, or
both,” and “such an assignment may be independent from the datapath
assignments from other inputs at Port A 104, Port B 105 and MAC B.” Id.
at 3:36–40. In other words, Buchanan generally teaches selectively
connecting internal datapaths and multiplexers (and a vast number of
possibilities for routing paths), but the specific examples in Buchanan do not
teach crossover routing.
We agree with Appellant that the Examiner does not make sufficient
findings that either Hao or Buchanan, or the combination, teaches the
claimed crossover routing, where the first control mechanism transmits data
from a first internal transmit connector via the first physical port and
receives data from the second physical port, while the second control
mechanism transmits data from the second internal transmit connector via
the second physical port and receives data from the first physical port. First,
neither reference explicitly discloses this limitation. Second, the Examiner
has not provided sufficient findings that the claimed routing would have
been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. For example, the Examiner
does not articulate any reasoning why Buchanan’s generally selective
routing suggests specifically choosing: (1) a first internal transmit connector
transmits data to a first physical port but receives data from the second
physical port, and (2) a second internal transmit connector transmits data to a
second physical port but receives data from the first physical port, as
claimed. See In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (“[R]ejections
on obviousness grounds cannot be sustained by mere conclusory statements;
Appeal 2019-004600
Application 13/906,035

9
instead, there must be some articulated reasoning with some rational
underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness.”).
Because we agree with at least one of the arguments advanced by
Appellant, we need not reach the merits of Appellant’s other arguments.
Accordingly, on this record, we do not sustain the Examiner’s § 103
rejection of independent claims 1, 25, and 27, and dependent claims 5–8,
10–24, 26, and 28–31.
CONCLUSION
We reverse the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 5–8, and 10–31
under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
In summary:
Claims
Rejected 35 U.S.C. §
Reference(s)/
Basis Affirmed Reversed
1, 5–8, 10–31 103
Hao,
Buchanan
1, 5–8, 10–
31

REVERSED