Texas Instruments Incorporated

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Apr 27, 2021

2020000431 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 27, 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.
15/346,865 11/09/2016 Deric Wayne Waters TI-76663 4383
23494 7590 04/27/2021
TEXAS INSTRUMENTS INCORPORATED
P O BOX 655474, MS 3999
DALLAS, TX 75265
EXAMINER
OBERLY, ERIC T
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2184
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
04/27/2021 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):
uspto@ti.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte DERIC WAYNE WATERS and GREGORY WALLIS COLLINS
________________

Appeal 2020-000431
Application 15/346,865
Technology Center 2100
____________

Before JAMES R. HUGHES, JOHNNY A. KUMAR, and
MATTHEW J. McNEILL, Administrative Patent Judges.

McNEILL, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 1 and 10‒18.1 See Final Act. 2, 5, 7, and 8. Claims 2‒9
are objected to as depending on rejected base claim 1, but are otherwise
indicated as allowable. Accordingly, these claims are not before us on
appeal. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.

1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in
37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies Texas Instruments Incorporated as the
real party in interest. Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal 2020-000431
Application 15/346,865

2

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
Appellant’s application relates to a USB port controller that
automatically switches between a normal operation mode communicating
with a USB device and a power saving mode reducing power in absence of
communication with a USB device. Spec. ¶¶ 10‒15. Claim 1 is illustrative of
the appealed subject matter and reads as follows:
1. A universal serial bus (USB) port controller for interfacing
a USB device through a USB port connector, comprising:
a communications interface circuit to communicate with a
port manager circuit over a communications connection, the
communications connection connecting the port manager circuit
and the communications interface circuit and not coupled to the
USB port connector; and
a control circuit configured to:
switch operation of the USB port controller from a
first power mode for normal operation of the USB port
controller, to a second power mode for reduced power
consumption compared to the power consumption in the
first power mode by the USB port controller, in response
to the communications interface circuit receiving a
command from the port manager circuit over the
communications connection,
switch operation of the USB port controller from the
second power mode to the first power mode in response to
an occurrence of either one of: (i) detected activity on the
communications connection, or (ii) a detected connection
of a USB device to the USB port connector, and
after switching from the second power mode to the
first power mode in response to detected activity on the
communications connection, to automatically switch
operation of the USB port controller back to the second
power mode unless a communications transaction
addressed to the USB port controller is received over the
communications connection within a non-zero certain
Appeal 2020-000431
Application 15/346,865

3

time after switching from the second power mode to the
first power mode.
The Examiner’s Rejections
Claims 1 and 13 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable
over Kakish (US 2011/0231682 A1; Sept. 22, 2011) and Axelson (USB
Complete: Everything you need to Develop USB Peripherals, Third Ed.;
Aug. 1, 2005). See Final Act. 2‒4.
Claims 10, 11, and 14‒18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Kakish, Axelson, and further in view of Tupala
(US 2015/0293514 A1; Oct. 15, 2015) and Zupke (US 2017/0070010 A1;
Mar. 9, 2017). See Final Act. 5‒13.
Claim 12 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over
Kakish, Axelson, and Zupke. See Final Act. 7‒8.
ANALYSIS
Appellant argues the Examiner errs in rejecting claim 1 because
Kakish does not teach or suggest “a communication interface circuit to
communicate with a port manager circuit over a communications
connection, the communications connection connecting the port manager
circuit and the communications interface circuit and not coupled to the USB
port connector.” See Appeal Br. 5‒7; Reply Br. 2‒3. In particular, Appellant
argues Kakish teaches a USB bus and, therefore, the bus is coupled to the
USB port connector. Appeal Br. at 7 (citing Kakish ¶ 24). Appellant argues
Kakish does not disclose the communication connection not coupled to the
USB port connector. Id. at 6.
The Examiner finds Kakish teaches a communication connection
between the computer system and the multiport docking station, wherein the
multiport docking station extends the USB system to a plurality of
Appeal 2020-000431
Application 15/346,865

4

downstream USB ports. Ans. 4 (citing Kakish ¶¶ 2, 10, 24). The Examiner
finds Kakish teaches the communication connection is not coupled to the
additional USB port connectors of the downstream USB peripherals because
there is no direct connection between these components. Id. The Examiner
further finds Kakish teaches there is no direct connection of the downstream
USB peripherals to the communication connection because the
communication connection is between the computer and the multi-port
docking station and the downstream peripherals are connected to the multi-
port docking station, not connected directly to the communication
connection. Id. (citing Kakish ¶¶ 2, 10, 24).
Appellant argues the Examiner errs in construing the limitation “the
communications connection . . . not coupled to the USB port connector.”
Reply Br. 2. In particular, Appellant argues this requires that the
communications connection is neither directly nor indirectly coupled to the
USB port connector. Id. at 2‒4. The Examiner interprets this limitation to
only require that the communications connection is not directly coupled to
the USB port connector. See Final Act. 2‒3, Ans. 4.
The Board “determines the scope of claims in patent applications not
solely on the basis of the claim language, but upon giving claims their
broadest reasonable construction ‘in light of the specification as it would be
interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art.’” Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415
F.3d 1303, 1316 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (quoting In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech. Ctr.,
367 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004).
“Above all, the broadest reasonable interpretation must be reasonable
in light of the claims and specification.” PPC Broadband, Inc. v. Corning
Optical Commc’ns RF, LLC, 815 F.3d 747, 755 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (emphasis
Appeal 2020-000431
Application 15/346,865

5

in original). As our reviewing Court held, “[t]he protocol of giving claims
their broadest reasonable interpretation . . . does not include giving claims a
legally incorrect interpretation.” Microsoft Corp. v. Proxyconn, Inc.,
789 F.3d 1292, 1298 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (citing In re Skvorecz, 580 F.3d 1262,
1267 (Fed. Cir. 2009); see also In re Suitco Surface, Inc., 603 F.3d 1255,
1260 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (“The broadest-construction rubric coupled with the
term ‘comprising’ does not give the PTO an unfettered license to interpret
claims to embrace anything remotely related to the claimed invention.”).
Appellant argues the Examiner interprets the term “coupled” so
broadly that the term may encompass virtually any type of coupling and that
such an interpretation would render the term superfluous by stripping it of
any real meaning. Reply Br. 3 (citing In re Power Integration, Inc., 884 F.3d
1370, 1375‒76 (Fed. Cir. 2018). Appellant argues the term “coupled” should
not encompass indirect coupling, but even if it did, Kakish’s data bus 360 is
both directly and indirectly coupled to the USB port connector. Id.
Appellant’s argument regarding whether the term “coupled” should
include indirect coupling is unpersuasive of Examiner error for three
reasons. First, the limitation at issue is a negative limitation, in particular
“the communications connection . . . not coupled to the USB port
connector.” Thus, the issue is whether the Examiner correctly finds that
Kakish teaches this limitation because it teaches data bus 360 is not directly
coupled to the USB port connector. Appellant’s argument regarding whether
“couple” should encompass direct or indirect coupling when recited as a
positive limitation is unpersuasive of Examiner error regarding this negative
limitation.
Appeal 2020-000431
Application 15/346,865

6

Second, Appellant’s argument is contrary to the intrinsic evidence of
record. In particular, the Specification states “the term ‘couple’ or ‘couples’
is intended to include indirect or direct electrical connection or combinations
thereof.” Spec. ¶ 10. Accordingly, Appellant’s argument is not consistent
with the Specification.
Third, the Examiner’s interpretation of “not coupled to” is consistent
with the language of the claims and Appellant’s Specification. Claim 1
recites “a communications interface circuit to communicate with a port
manager circuit over a communications connection.” Claim 1 further recites
“the communications connection connecting the port manager circuit and the
communications interface circuit and not coupled to the USB port
connector.”
An ordinarily skilled artisan would interpret the limitation “the
communications connection . . . not coupled to” a particular circuit to
reference whether the communications connection (or bus) is physically
connected to the circuit. In other words, whether it is directly connected to
the circuit. This is consistent with the Specification’s usage of the term. The
Specification discloses communications interface circuit 142 communicates
with port manager circuit 104 over a communications connection, which is
labeled 106 and 108 in Figure 1. Spec. ¶ 13, Fig. 1; see also Appeal Br. 2.
Communications connections 106 and 108 are buses that link
communications interface circuit 142 that communicates to port manager
circuit 104. Spec. ¶ 13, Fig. 1. Figure 1 also depicts communications
connections 106 and 108 are connected to USB port controllers 120-1 and
120-2, which are in turn connected to USB port connectors 102-1 and 102-2.
Thus, Figure 1 depicts communications connections 106 and 108 as being
Appeal 2020-000431
Application 15/346,865

7

indirectly connected to the USB port controllers, which reinforces the
Examiner’s interpretation of the claim as requiring only that the
communications connection is not directly coupled to the USB port
connector. Accordingly, Appellant has not persuasively identified error in
the Examiner’s findings regarding the claim construction of “not coupled
to.”
Appellant also argues that even under the Examiner’s interpretation of
the claim, Kakish teaches data bus 360 is directly connected to the USB port
connector. Reply Br. 3. However, Appellant provides no explanation for this
conclusory statement and cites no evidence in support of this statement. See
id. As stated by the Federal Circuit, Rule 41.37 “require[s] more substantive
arguments in an appeal brief than a mere recitation of the claim elements and
a naked assertion that the corresponding elements were not found in the
prior art.” In re Lovin, 652 F.3d 1349, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2011).
Appellant also argues that because Kakish does not teach the “the
communication connection not coupled to the USB port connector”
limitation, Kakish does not teach the limitation “switch operation of the
USB port controller from the second power mode to the first power mode in
response to an occurrence of either one of: (i) detected activity on the
communication connection.” See Appeal Br. 6; Reply Br. 3. We disagree for
the same reasons set forth above.
For these reasons, we sustain the obviousness rejection of claim 1. We
also sustain the obviousness rejection of independent claim 14, which
Appellant argues is patentable for the same reasons. See Appeal Br. 6. We
also sustain the obviousness rejection of dependent claims 10‒13 and 15‒18,
for which Appellant relies on the same arguments. See id.
Appeal 2020-000431
Application 15/346,865

8

CONCLUSION
In summary:
Claim(s)
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1, 13 103 Kakish, Axelson 1, 13
10, 11 103 Kakish, Axelson,
Tupala, Zupke
10, 11
12 103 Kakish, Axelson,
Zupke
12
14‒18 103 Kakish, Axelson,
Tupala, Zupke
14‒18
Overall
Outcome
1, 10‒18

No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED