ATEN International Co., Ltd.

Patent Trials and Appeals BoardDec 16, 2021

2020006277 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 16, 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. 14/539,960 11/12/2014 Tsu-mu Chang 72836.P103009 2187 53720 7590 12/16/2021 Chen Yoshimura LLP Attention Ying Chen PO Box 70127 Sunnyvale, CA 94087 EXAMINER PREVAL, LIONEL ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2416 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 12/16/2021 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): miwa@cyiplaw.com ychen@cyiplaw.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte TSU-MU CHANG, YUNG-YI CHANG, and YING-CHEN CHEN ________________ Appeal 2020-006277 Application 14/539,960 Technology Center 2400 ____________ Before MARC S. HOFF, 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 Non-Final Rejection of claims 1, 3‒9, and 11‒20, which are all the claims pending in this application.1 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 (2019). Appellant identifies the real party in interest as ATEN International Co., Ltd. Appeal Br. 2. Appeal 2020-006277 Application 14/539,960 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Introduction Appellant’s application relates to asymmetric duplex transmission devices. Spec. ¶ 1. Claims 1 illustrates the appealed subject matter and reads as follows: 1. An asymmetric duplex transmission device, comprising: a master device, comprising an oscillator, a first phase lock loop coupled to the oscillator and a master transceiver module coupled to the first phase lock loop; and at least one slave device coupled to the master device, each slave device comprising a slave transceiver module; wherein the master transceiver module transmits a forward clock to the slave transceiver module through a first transmission medium, transmits a forward data to the slave transceiver module through a second transmission medium, and receives a backward data transmitted from the slave transceiver module through a third transmission medium, without receiving any backward clock from the slave transceiver module, wherein each of the forward data transmitted by the master transceiver module to the slave transceiver module, the forward clock transmitted by the master transceiver module to the slave transceiver module, and the backward data transmitted by the slave transceiver module and received by the master transceiver module is a serial data, and wherein the forward clock and the forward data are transmitted separately to the slave transceiver module; and wherein the first phase lock loop provides a first clock according to a clock signal generated by the oscillator, the first clock being used by the master transceiver module to transmit the forward clock and the forward data to the at least one slave device, and the first clock being used by the master transceiver module to receive the serial backward data from the at least one slave device. Appeal 2020-006277 Application 14/539,960 3 The Examiner’s Rejections Claims 1, 3, 5, 7, and 18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102 as anticipated by Shibata (US 2008/0022144 A1; Jan. 24, 2008). Final Act. 4‒ 11. Claims 4, 6, and 19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Shibata and Tomooka (US 2001/0038387 A1; Nov. 8, 2001). Final Act. 11‒14. Claims 8 and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Shibata and Applicant’s Admitted Prior Art (“AAPA”). Final Act. 14‒16. Claims 9, 11, 12, 14, 16, and 17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Shibata and Kizer (US 7,072,355 B2; July 4, 2006). Final Act. 16‒23. Claims 13 and 15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Shibata, Kizer, and Tomooka. Final Act. 23‒24. ANALYSIS The Examiner finds Shibata discloses a “master transceiver module” that “receives a backward data transmitted from the slave transceiver . . . without receiving any backward clock from the slave transceiver module,” wherein the master transceiver module uses a “first clock” to “receive the serial backward data from the at least one slave device.” Final Act. 5‒7; Ans. 5‒18. In particular, the Examiner finds Shibata discloses a slave device that transmits backward data (DTI) and a strobe to the master device. Ans. 14‒15 (citing Shibata ¶¶ 22, 117, 139). The Examiner finds the strobe is generated by the slave device based on a clock signal received by the slave device from the master device. Id. at 15 (citing Shibata ¶ 117). The Appeal 2020-006277 Application 14/539,960 4 Examiner finds the strobe is not a clock and the master device generates the clock signal that is used by both devices to transmit and receive data. Id. Appellant argues the Examiner errs because Shibata discloses the slave device transmits strobe STB with backward data DTI and the strobe is a clock signal. Appeal Br. 6‒12; Reply Br. 2‒4. Appellant argues the fact that the strobe is generated based on the master’s forward clock does not mean that the strobe is not a clock signal. Reply Br. 3. Appellant argues Shibata discloses using this strobe to receive the backward data, which establishes that it is indeed a clock signal. Id. (citing Shibata ¶ 111). Appellant has persuaded us of Examiner error. Shibata discloses target-side data transfer control device sends backward data DTI and strobe STB to the host-side data transfer control device. Shibata ¶ 113. The target device generates strobe STB based on the received clock. Id. ¶ 116. We agree with Appellant that strobe STB is a clock signal and that Shibata discloses the host/master device uses this clock signal to receive backward data DTI. Id. ¶ 104. Accordingly, we are constrained by the record to agree with Appellant that the Examiner fails to sufficiently establish that Shibata discloses a “master transceiver module” that “receives a backward data transmitted from the slave transceiver . . . without receiving any backward clock from the slave transceiver module.” For these reasons, we do not sustain the Examiner’s anticipation rejection of independent claim 1. We also do not sustain the Examiner’s anticipation rejection of independent claim 18, which recites commensurate subject matter for which the Examiner relies on the same findings. See Final Act. 9‒11. Appeal 2020-006277 Application 14/539,960 5 Claims 4, 6, 8, 9, 11‒17, 19, and 20 stand rejected as unpatentable over Shibata and a combination of additional references. See Final Act. 11‒ 24. The Examiner does not find that the additionally cited references cure the deficiency identified above. See id. Accordingly, we do not sustain the rejections of claims 4, 6, 8, 9, 11‒17, 19, and 20 for the same reasons. CONCLUSION The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1, 3‒9, and 11‒20 is reversed. DECISION SUMMARY In summary: Claim(s) Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 1, 3, 5, 7, 18 102 Shibata 1, 3, 5, 7, 18 4, 6, 19 103 Shibata, Tomooka 4, 6, 19 8, 20 103 Shibata, AAPA 8, 20 9, 11, 12, 14, 16, 17 103 Shibata, Kizer 9, 11, 12, 14, 16, 17 13, 15 103 Shibata, Kizer, Tomooka 13, 15 Overall Outcome 1, 3‒9, 11‒ 20 REVERSED