Ex Parte 6564275 et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 25, 2012

95000539 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 25, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARKOFFICE
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.
95/000,539 03/08/2010 6564275 72836.P035 7754
53720 7590 09/25/2012
Chen Yoshimura LLP
Attention Ying Chen
333 W. El Camino Real, Suite 380
Sunnyvale, CA 94087
EXAMINER
CHOI, WOO H
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3992
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/25/2012 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________
BELKIN INTERNATIONAL, INC. & BELKIN, INC.
Requester, Appellant, and Respondent

v.

Patent of ATEN INTERNATIONAL CO., LTD
Patent Owner, Appellant, and Respondent
____________________

Appeal 2012-008960
Reexamination Control 95/000,539
Patent US 6,564,275 B1
Technology Center 3900

____________

Before HOWARD B. BLANKENSHIP, KARL D. EASTHOM, and
THOMAS L. GIANNETTI, Administrative Patent Judges.

BLANKENSHIP, Administrative Patent Judge

DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Owner appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(b) from the final decision of the
Examiner adverse to the patentability of claims 1-4, 6, 8-12, 32-44, and 52-
App
Reex
Paten

68.
the E
We h
univ
inven
resis
eal 2012-0
amination
t US 6,56
Requester
xaminer f
ave jurisd
We affir

The '275
ersal seria
Figure 2

Figure 2
tion. The
tor R1, a c
08960
Control 9
4,275 B1
appeals un
avorable t
iction und
m-in-part.
patent is
l bus (USB
of the pat
depicts a
circuit in
apacitor C
5/000,539
der 35 U.
o the paten
er 35 U.S.

In
directed to
) interface
ent is repro
detailed ci
cludes a tr
1, and a sw

2
S.C. § 134
tability of
C. § 315.
vention
an electro
. '275 pat
duced bel
rcuit of the
igger signa
itch SW1
(c) from th
claims 5,

nic switch
ent Abstra
ow.
first emb
l generato
), a contro
e final de
13-31, and
ing device
ct.
odiment o
r 11 (com
l signal ge
cision of
45-51.
for a
f the
prising a
nerator 12

Appeal 2012-008960
Reexamination Control 95/000,539
Patent US 6,564,275 B1

3
(D flip-flop), and a connector 13 (multiplexor). When the connector 13
receives the control signal outputted from the control signal generator 12,
the connector 13 will connect the third USB interface 16 with the first USB
interface 14 or the second USB interface 15. '275 patent col. 2, l. 29 - col. 3,
l. 36.

Claims
Claims 1-6 and 8-12 are original patent claims, or original patent
claims proposed to be amended. Patent claim 7 is not subject to
reexamination. Claims 13-68 are proposed new claims.
Claim 1 is representative.
1. (Original) An electronic switching device for a
universal serial bus (USB) interface, comprising a trigger signal
generator, a control signal generator, and a connector, wherein:

the trigger signal generator has an output to be connected
with an input of the control signal generator, and a switch to
output a trigger signal to the control signal generator when a
user enables the switch;

the trigger signal generator comprises a resistor, a
capacitor, and a switch, the resistor and the capacitor being
serially connected between a power supply and a ground one
end of the switch being connected to the ground, and the other
end of the switch being connected to where the resistor and the
capacitor are connected, such that when a user enables the
switch, the switch will generate a pulse signal to be used as a
trigger signal for outputting to the control signal generator;

the control signal generator has an input to be connected
with an output of the trigger signal generator, and an output to
be connected with an input of the connector, for receiving the
Appeal 2012-008960
Reexamination Control 95/000,539
Patent US 6,564,275 B1

4
trigger signal outputted from the trigger signal generator,
processing the trigger signal, and then outputting a control
signal to the connector; and

the connector has an input to be connected with each
universal serial bus (USB) interface of at least two electronic
devices, and an output to be connected with a universal serial
bus (USB) interface of another electronic device, such that
when the connector receives the control signal outputted from
the control signal generator, the connector will connect related
universal serial bus (USB) interfaces according to the control
signal.

Prior Art
Smithson US 4,539,564 Sep. 3, 1985
Liang US 5,928,341 July 27, 1999
Osakada US 6,308,239 B1 Oct. 23, 2001
Kim KR 0004527 June 25, 1994
Jung KR 0008539 June 28, 1996

Paul Horowitz and Winfield Hill, The Art of Electronics, The
Press Syndicate University of Cambridge, 2d ed. (1989)
(hereinafter “Horowitz”).

Rudolf F. Graf, Encyclopedia of Electronic Circuits, Vol. 3
(1991) (hereinafter “Graf”).

Universal Serial Bus Specification, Verison 1.0, Compaq
Computer Corporation et al., (1996) (hereinafter “USB”).

Owner’s Contentions
Owner contends that the Examiner erred in entering the following
grounds of rejections against claims 1-4, 6, 8-12, 32-44, and 52-68:
Appeal 2012-008960
Reexamination Control 95/000,539
Patent US 6,564,275 B1

5
I. Claims 32-44 and 56-68 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a) as
enlarging the scope of the claims of the patent;1
II. Claims 52-55 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph,
as lacking adequate written description;
III. Claims 1-4 and 8-12 are rejected over prior art combinations that
include Osakada:
(i) Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over
Osakada and Graf;
(ii) Claims 1 and 2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
over Osakada and Kim;
(iii) Claims 2 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
over Osakada and Liang;
(iv) Claims 3, 8, and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) over Osakada and Jung;
(v) Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over
Osakada and Horowitz;
(vi) Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over
Osakada, Jung, and USB; and
(vii) Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over
Osakada, Jung, and Horowitz; and
IV. Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Smithson and
USB.

1 The Examiner and both parties refer to § 305, which is the corresponding
statute for ex parte reexamination.
Appeal 2012-008960
Reexamination Control 95/000,539
Patent US 6,564,275 B1

6

Requester’s Contentions
Requester contends that the Examiner erred in not entering grounds of
rejection against claims 5, 13-31, and 45-51.

ANALYSIS
I. 35 U.S.C. § 314(a)
The Examiner rejects new claims 32-44 and 56-68 for impermissible
broadening, as set forth in the Action Closing Prosecution mailed November
19, 2010 (ACP).
Independent claims 32 and 56 are impermissibly
broadened. Both claims 32 and 56 duplicate the limitations of
original claim 5, but drop the requirements that the multiplexors
be “parallely [sic; parallelly] connected for decreasing the
internal resistance in the connector”, and in addition claim 56
specifically drops the requirement that the multiplexors be
“identical”. As this is a broader scope than the original claim,
these claims are therefore rejected under 35 U.S.C. 305 [sic; 35
U.S.C. § 314(a)].

Claims 33-44 and 57-68 inherit this rejection through
dependency.

ACP 14.
Owner does not contest the Examiner’s determination that proposed
new claims 32 and 56 are broader than original claim 5 (or any original
patent claim). We therefore sustain the rejection of claims 32 and 56 under
35 U.S.C. § 314(a).
Appeal 2012-008960
Reexamination Control 95/000,539
Patent US 6,564,275 B1

7
Owner submits, however, that each of dependent claims 33-44 and 57-
68 adds limitations such that each dependent claim is narrower than an
original patent claim. Owner’s App. Br. 46-56.
The Examiner has not met the initial burden of setting forth a case
which demonstrates that the proposed dependent claims enlarge the scope of
the patent claims. The dependent claims cannot “inherit” the rejection of the
respective independent claim through “dependency” because the dependent
claims add limitations and are thus narrower than base claim 32 or base
claim 56. The mere fact that the dependent claims depend from
impermissibly broad base claims does not establish that any of the dependent
claims are broader than each and every patent claim. Because the
Examiner’s rejection does not set forth a satisfactory basis for the conclusion
that dependent claims 33-44 and 57-68 enlarge the scope of the claims of the
patent, and Owner does not admit or acknowledge that any dependent claim
is broader than any patent claim, we cannot sustain the rejection of
dependent claims 33-44 and 57-68 under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a).2

II. 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph
To comply with the “written description” requirement of 35 U.S.C.
§ 112, first paragraph, an applicant must convey with reasonable clarity to

2 “If an amended base patent claim or a new base claim is rejected, a claim
dependent thereon should be objected to if it is otherwise patentable, and a
requirement should be made for rewriting the dependent claim in
independent form.” Manual of Patent Examining Procedure (MPEP) §
2660.03, Eighth Ed., Rev. 8, July 2010 (emphasis changed from original).
The Examiner thus should have considered the dependent claims separately,
and rejected or objected to each dependent claim as appropriate.
Appeal 2012-008960
Reexamination Control 95/000,539
Patent US 6,564,275 B1

8
those skilled in the art that, as of the filing date sought, he or she was in
possession of the invention. The invention is, for purposes of the “written
description” inquiry, whatever is now claimed. Vas-Cath, Inc. v. Mahurkar,
935 F.2d 1555, 1563-64 (Fed. Cir. 1991). One shows “possession” by
descriptive means such as words, structures, figures, diagrams, and formulas
that fully set forth the claimed invention. Lockwood v. American Airlines,
Inc., 107 F.3d 1565, 1572 (Fed. Cir. 1997). It is not sufficient for purposes
of the written description requirement that the disclosure, when combined
with the knowledge in the art, would lead one to speculate as to
modifications that the inventor might have envisioned, but failed to disclose.
Id.
“[T]he hallmark of written description is disclosure. Thus,
‘possession as shown in the disclosure’ is a more complete formulation. . .
“[T]he test requires an objective inquiry into the four corners of the
specification from the perspective of a person of ordinary skill in the art.”
Ariad Pharms., Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co., 598 F.3d 1336, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2010)
(en banc).
The invention claimed does not have to be described in ipsis verbis in
order to satisfy the written description requirement. Union Oil Co. v.
Atlantic Richfield Co., 208 F.3d 989, 1000 (Fed. Cir. 2000). However,
written description support should not be confused with the question of what
would have been obvious to the artisan. Whether one skilled in the art
would find the instantly claimed invention obvious in view of the disclosure
is not an issue in the “written description” inquiry. In re Barker, 559 F.2d
588, 593 (CCPA 1977). A description which renders obvious the invention
Appeal 2012-008960
Reexamination Control 95/000,539
Patent US 6,564,275 B1

9
for which the benefit of an earlier date is sought is not sufficient. Lockwood,
107 F.3d at 572.
The Examiner rejects new claims 52 through 55 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 112, first paragraph, because of a lack of explanation of support for the
limitations of “delay signal generator” and “enable signal generator” in the
claims. ACP 15.
Owner points to disclosure in the written description and drawings
that Owner deems to provide support for each limitation of claims 52
through 55. Owner’s App. Br. 57-65. Requester, however, submits that the
combination of an enable signal generator and a delay signal generator is not
found in the '275 patent, such that possession of an embodiment combining
the elements has not been demonstrated. Requester’s Respond. Br. 29.
Owner elected not to file a rebuttal brief, 3 so we do not have Owner’s views
on how possession of the “combination” might be conveyed by the '275
patent disclosure.
The '275 patent describes a “first embodiment” (Figs. 1 and 2). '275
patent col. 1, ll. 44-47. The drawings further depict the “first embodiment”
with “a delay signal generator” added (Figs. 5 and 6) and with an “enable
signal generator” added (Figs. 9 and 10). '275 patent col. 1, ll. 53-58, 65-67;
col. 2, ll. 1-3. The patent further describes the depicted embodiments at
column 4, lines 21 through 67 (Figs. 5 and 6) and at column 5, lines 10
through 43 (Figs. 9 and 10). Original, independent patent claim 6 (with

3 See 37 C.F.R. § 41.71 (b)(1) (“The rebuttal brief of the owner may be
directed to the examiner’s answer and/or any respondent brief.”).
Appeal 2012-008960
Reexamination Control 95/000,539
Patent US 6,564,275 B1

10
dependent claim 7) recites a “delay signal generator.” Original, independent
patent claim 10 recites an “enable signal generator.”
Notably, we find no adequate written description of an embodiment
that combines the features of a “delay signal generator” 17 (Figs. 5 and 6)
with that of an “enable signal generator” 19 (Figs. 9 and 10). Because we do
not find descriptive means such as words, structures, figures, diagrams, and
formulas that fully set forth the respective invention of each of claims 52
through 55, we sustain the § 112, first paragraph rejection of these claims.

III. Examiner’s Prior Art Rejections

Findings of Fact -- Osakada
Figure 1 of Osakada is reproduced below.
App
Reex
Paten

conf
may
switc
eal 2012-0
amination
t US 6,56
Osakada
iguration o
be effecte
hing com
08960
Control 9
4,275 B1
’s Figure
f a USB h
d by two d
mand and
5/000,539
1 is a block
ost selecto
ifferent m
the switch

11
diagram
r. Osakad
ethods. U
ing contro
showing a
a col. 3, ll
SB hosts 1
l section 1
hardware
. 49-51. S
03 may se
10 interpr

witching
nd out a
ets the
App
Reex
Paten

comm
oper
the s
eal 2012-0
amination
t US 6,56
and throu
ate manua
Figure 2
Osakada
witching c
08960
Control 9
4,275 B1
gh the US
l change-o
of Osakad
’s Figure 2
ontrol sec
5/000,539
B bus inte
ver switch
a is repro
is said to
tion 110.

12
rface 107
111. Col
duced belo
be a flow
Osakada c
. Alternat
. 4, l. 66 -
w.
chart show
ol. 5, ll. 13
ively, a us
col. 5, l. 1
ing the op
-14.
er may
2.

eration of
Appeal 2012-008960
Reexamination Control 95/000,539
Patent US 6,564,275 B1

13
After system power is switched on, at step 202 (Fig. 2), an arbitrary
one of valid USB hosts 103 is selected by the switching section 109. If a
switching command is issued by a USB host 103 and detected at step 204,
the process proceeds to step 206. If there is not a switching command from
a USB host 103 and the user issues a manual switching command, the
process proceeds from step 205 to step 206. If the USB host to be switched
is properly connected, switching section 109 is switched according to the
switching control command (step 207). After switching in step 207, the
process returns to step 203 rather than step 204, because switching of the
USB hosts 103 requires initialization of the USB devices 104 (and USB bus
interface 107). Osakada col. 5, ll. 13-46.4

Claim 1 -- § 103(a) Osakada and Graf
The Examiner adopts Requester’s proposed rejection of claim 1 as set
forth at pages 89 through 94 of the Request for Reexamination. ACP 4-5.
The rejection is based in part on combining the manual change-over switch
111 of Osakada with Graf’s debounce circuit because the problem of switch
chatter was well known, and Graf’s debounce circuit provides a well-known
solution to the problem. Req. Reexam. 93. Osakada is deemed to teach a
“trigger signal generator” (manual change-over switch 111) while Graf is

4 Osakada’s flowchart of Figure 2 contains an obvious error. No switching
occurs after step 205 (“NO”) and step 206 (“NO”). We presume that flow
control in those cases returns to step 204. If, as depicted, flow control were
to return to step 203, when there is no switching to be performed the USB
devices 104 and USB interface 107 would not be in the normal operating
state (with data transfer between the host and devices), but would be in a
constant state of initializing.
Appeal 2012-008960
Reexamination Control 95/000,539
Patent US 6,564,275 B1

14
deemed to offer a simple “how to” construct the trigger signal generator to
enhance system reliability. Id.
Owner argues that Osakada fails to teach or suggest a control signal
generator “for receiving the trigger signal outputted from the trigger signal
generator, processing the trigger signal, and then outputting a control signal
to the connector,” which is a deficiency not cured by Graf. Owner’s App.
Br. 22. Owner acknowledges that changeover switch 111 selects the host,
by signaling one of four options corresponding to hosts 103a to 103d, but
contends that the manual signal does not select the USB devices (104a to
104c), so there is no need for the switching control section 110 to interpret
the manual change-over signal. Id. at 21-22.
However, as shown in Osakada’s Figure 2, there is no direct
connection between manual changeover switch 111 and switching section
109. Further, the reference teaches, with respect to operation of the manual
changeover switch 111, that switching control section 110 “performs priority
control as to the switching control command issued from the USB hosts
103.” Osakada col. 5, ll. 9-12. We therefore find that Osakada teaches that
switching control section 110 receives one or more signals from manual
changeover switch 111, when the switch is actuated, for directing switching
section 109 to select the indicated USB host. There is thus, contrary to
Owner’s argument, a need for switching control section 110 to interpret the
manual change-over signal. If the signal(s) from manual changeover switch
111 were not properly processed by switching control section 110, no
switching would occur.
Appeal 2012-008960
Reexamination Control 95/000,539
Patent US 6,564,275 B1

15
Owner also submits that even if Osakada and Graf were to be
combined, the combination would not teach or suggest the “trigger signal
generator” as recited in claim 1. We have already considered Owner’s basis
for the argument, however, and found it untenable. According to Owner,
Osakada’s manual changeover switch 111 generates the control signal itself,
which merely needs to be selected and not processed by switching control
section 110. Owner’s App. Br. 24. We find that Osakada’s switching
control section 110 processes the signal from changeover switch 111, to the
extent required by claim 1, as opposed to merely supplying “one of the
signals from the output of change-over switch 111 to the switching section
109.” Id. at 23. If the changeover switch signal were “merely supplied” to
the switching section 109, the changeover switch 111 would be directly
connected to switching section 109.
Moreover, even if Osakada’s changeover switch 111 supplies a
different host selection signal for each host, such as four signals for four
hosts (id. at 24), claim 1 does not distinguish over supplying two, three, four
or more debounce circuits as taught by Graf for generating two, three, four
or more different host selection signals. That is, claim 1 requires a “trigger
signal generator,” but the claim does not preclude two or more “trigger
signal generators.”
Finally, we find Owner’s allegation (App. Br. 24) that the “debounce
function of the Graf circuit does not come from the capacitor and 500k
resistor illustrated in Graf, but rather from an ‘internal resistor’ included in
the TTL inverter 74LS14” to be inapposite. Claim 1 requires a trigger signal
generator comprising a resistor, a capacitor, and a switch as arranged in
Appeal 2012-008960
Reexamination Control 95/000,539
Patent US 6,564,275 B1

16
Graf, but the claim does not preclude the trigger signal generator from
further comprising a TTL inverter having an internal resistor. See Graf at
592, Fig. 99-2.
In view of the evidence supporting the Examiner’s rejection and
Owner’s arguments to the contrary, we are not persuaded that claim 1 has
been rejected in error. We sustain the § 103(a) rejection of claim 1 over
Osakada and Graf.5

Claims 1-4 and 8-12 -- § 103(a) Osakada
and Additional Prior Art

Owner’s remarks in the Appeal Brief that are purported to be in
response to the § 103(a) rejections over Osakada and additional prior art
combined with Osakada do not address the reasons that the Examiner found
Requester’s arguments to be the more persuasive. See ACP 16-27.
Accordingly, the remarks fail to demonstrate error in the Examiner’s
adoption of the proposed rejections.
Moreover, Owner has failed to respond to Requester’s arguments and
evidence that are set forth in Requester’s Appeal Brief. Pertinent
requirements of a Respondent’s brief are set forth below.
§ 41.68 Respondent’s brief.
. . .
(vii) Argument. A statement accepting or
disputing the contentions of appellant with each of the issues
presented by the appellant for review. If a contention of the

5 Moreoever, as discussed infra, Owner has not responded to Requester’s
arguments and evidence in the briefs that further demonstrate unpatentability
of the subject matter of claim 1 in view of Osakada and Graf.
Appeal 2012-008960
Reexamination Control 95/000,539
Patent US 6,564,275 B1

17
appellant is disputed, the errors in appellant’s argument must
be specified, stating the basis therefor, with citations of the
statutes, regulations, authorities, and parts of the record relied
on. Each issue must be treated under a separate heading. An
argument may be made with each of the issues stated in the
counterstatement of the issues, with each counter-stated issue
being treated under a separate heading.

37 C.F.R. § 41.68(b)(1)(vii) (emphasis added).
Finally, because Owner elected not to file a rebuttal brief (37 C.F.R.
§ 41.71), Owner has failed to respond to Requester’s arguments in response
to Owner’s Appeal Brief, which are set forth in Requester’s Respondent
Brief, and which we find to be persuasive.
Thus, Owner had the opportunity (and duty) to provide arguments
with respect to why any of Requester’s positions in Requester’s briefs might
be considered unfounded. We will not attempt to make arguments on
Owner’s behalf that might have been presented in Owner’s briefs.
Arguments that Owner could have made, but did not, have been waived. See
37 C.F.R. § 41.67(c)(1)(vii) (“Any arguments or authorities not included in
the brief permitted under this section or §§ 41.68 and 41.71 will be refused
consideration by the Board, unless good cause is shown.”).
Accordingly, as Owner has failed to demonstrate error in the
Examiner’s rejections, we sustain the § 103(a) rejections of claims 1-4 and
8-12 over Osakada and additional prior art.

Appeal 2012-008960
Reexamination Control 95/000,539
Patent US 6,564,275 B1

18
Claim 6 -- § 103(a) over Smithson and USB
The Examiner has set forth a rejection of claim 6 as obvious over
Smithson and USB (ACP 11-14) that was not specifically proposed by
Requester.
We have considered Owner’s arguments in response to the rejection
(Owner’s App. Br. 43-45), but find them not persuasive essentially for the
reasons set forth by Requester (Requester’s Resp. Br. 23-29). Moreover,
Owner has shown error neither in the Examiner’s rejection nor in
Requester’s response. Arguments that Owner could have presented, but did
not, have been waived. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.67(c)(1)(vii).
We therefore sustain the Examiner’s § 103(a) rejection of claim 6
over Smithson and USB.

IV. Non-entry of Rejections
We will sustain the Examiner’s decision not to enter grounds of
rejections against claims 13-31 and 45-51. The Examiner finds that
Requester did not present any specific rejections and did not address all the
requirements of specific claims, instead offering a piecemeal analysis of how
different claim elements may relate to proposed prior art. As such, there
were no specific issues or proposed rejections for the Examiner to adopt or
not adopt from the Requester’s comments after the non-final action. ACP
14. See Manual of Patent Examining Procedure (MPEP) §§ 2666.05 and
2617, Eighth Ed., Rev. 8, July 2010 (a newly proposed ground of rejection
in the written comments must comply with the guidelines for an original
request for inter partes reexamination).
Appeal 2012-008960
Reexamination Control 95/000,539
Patent US 6,564,275 B1

19
Requester in the briefs does not address the Examiner’s above-noted
reasons for non-entry and thus does not demonstrate error in non-entry of
any rejections against claims 13-31 and 45-51. Moreover, Requester cannot
remedy deficiencies in the comments after non-final action by proposing
specific grounds of rejection against the claims for the first time in the
Appeal Brief. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.67(c)(1)(vi) (“No new ground of rejection
can be proposed by a third party requester appellant, unless such ground was
withdrawn by the examiner during the prosecution of the proceeding, and
the third party requester has not yet had an opportunity to propose it as a
third party requester proposed ground of rejection.”).
The Examiner did not enter the proposed § 103(a) rejection of claim
5, as obvious over Osakada and Horowitz, because the Examiner finds that
the references fail to teach a connector that comprises at least two identical
multiplexors to be parallelly connected for decreasing the internal resistance
of the connector in the combination as claimed. ACP 15.
Requester refers to Dr. Min’s declaration (Min Dec’l), paragraphs 39
and 41, in support of the view that claim 5 should be rejected over Osakada
and Horowitz. Requester’s App. Br. 30. While we agree that Horowitz
explains that placing resistors in parallel decreases resistance, the allegation
that “it applies to all electrical components” (Min Dec’l ¶ 39) is entitled to
little weight, absent further explanation or a supporting reference in the art.
Further, Dr. Min testifies that one of ordinary skill in the art would not
consider it inventive, if desiring to decrease the internal resistance across the
multiplexor in Osakada’s switching section 109, to connect two of the 4x1
multiplexors in parallel, with common inputs and common outputs. Id. ¶ 41.
Appeal 2012-008960
Reexamination Control 95/000,539
Patent US 6,564,275 B1

20
However, claim 5 requires the structural limitation of at least two
identical multiplexors to be parallelly6 connected, for “decreasing the
internal resistance in the connector.” The rejection as proposed by
Requester appears to begin with what could be considered a statement of
intended use in the claim -- for decreasing the internal resistance in the
connector -- as a reason for the artisan to place multiplexors in parallel. The
proposed rejection appears to be based on the conclusion that it would have
been obvious to provide at least two multiplexors in parallel because the
artisan knew that placing resistors in parallel reduces resistance, and would
have been motivated to place multiplexors in parallel because the artisan
would have wanted to reduce resistance in Osakada’s switching section.
However, the evidence presented by Requester does not establish that
one of ordinary skill in the art would have any reason to reduce resistance
across Osakada’s switching section 109. Nor has Requester presented any
prior art that demonstrates that connecting identical multiplexors in parallel
(for any reason) was known at the time of invention. As such, Requester has
not shown that replacing one multiplexor with two parallelly connected
multiplexors is “little more than the simple substitution of one known
element for another.” Requester’s App. Br. 29.
We have considered all of Requester’s arguments but agree with the
Examiner that the requisite factual basis for a rejection of claim 5 under
§ 103(a) has not been provided. We sustain the Examiner’s decision not to
enter the proposed rejection of claim 5 over Osakada and Horowitz.

6 Defined as “in a parallel manner.” Webster’s Third New Int’l Dict.,
Unabridged (1993).
Appeal 2012-008960
Reexamination Control 95/000,539
Patent US 6,564,275 B1

21

V. Summary/Conclusion
We sustain the rejection of claims 32 and 56 under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a)
as enlarging the scope of the claims of the patent;
We do not sustain the rejection of claims 33-44 and 57-68 under 35
U.S.C. § 314(a) as enlarging the scope of the claims of the patent.
We sustain the rejection of claims 52-55 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first
paragraph, as lacking adequate written description.
We sustain the rejections of claims 1-4 and 8-12 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) over prior art combinations that include Osakada.
We sustain the rejection of claim 6 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Smithson and USB.
We sustain the Examiner’s decision not to enter grounds of rejection
against claims 5, 13-31, and 45-51.

DECISION
The Examiner’s decision favorable to the patentability of claims 5,
13-31, and 45-51 is affirmed. The Examiner’s decision adverse to the
patentability of claims 1-4, 6, 8-12, 32-44, and 52-68 is affirmed with
respect to claims 1-4, 6, 8-12, 32, 52-55, and 56 but reversed with respect to
claims 33-44 and 57-68.
Requests for extensions of time in this proceeding are governed by 37
C.F.R. §§ 1.304(a), 1.956, and 41.79(e).

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Appeal 2012-008960
Reexamination Control 95/000,539
Patent US 6,564,275 B1

22

Patent Owner:
ATTENTION YING CHEN
333 W. EL CAMINO REAL, SUITE 380
SUNNYVALE, CA 94087

Third Party Requester:
ORRICK, HERRINGTON & SUTLIFF, LLP IP PROSECUTION
4 PARK PLAZA, SUITE 1600
IRVINE, CA 92614-2558

cu