Ex Parte Alshinnawi et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Nov 9, 2016

13541483 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 9, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/541,483 07/03/2012
127893 7590 11/10/2016
Streets & Steele - Lenovo (Singapore) Pte. Ltd.
13100 Wortham Center Drive
Suite 245
Houston, TX 77065
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Shareef F. Alshinnawi
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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
XRPS920100134US2 1383
EXAMINER
QIN,ZHIREN
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2411
MAILDATE DELIVERY MODE
11/10/2016 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
Ex parte SHAREEF F. ALSHINNA WI,
JOHN J. STRUBLE JR., EDWARD S. SUFFERN, and
J. MARK WEBER
Appeal2015-002995
Application 13/541,483 1
Technology Center 2400
Before CARLA M. KRIVAK, AMBER L. HAGY, and
JOHN R. KENNY, Administrative Patent Judges.
HAGY, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
Final Rejection of claims 1-5, which are all of the pending claims. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We affirm.
1 Appellants identify Lenovo Enterprise Solutions (Singapore) Pte. Ltd. as
the real party in interest. (App. Br. 2.)
Appeal2015-002995
Application 13/541,483
Introduction
According to Appellants, "[t]he present invention relates to network
connections and high-speed data links between devices of a computer
network." (Spec. i12.)
Exemplary Claim
Claim 1, reproduced below with the disputed limitation italicized, is
exemplary of the claimed subject matter:
1. A method, comprising:
selectively connecting a host adapter to a network using a
four-channel physical connection or a single-channel physical
connection, wherein each channel includes one transmitter lane
and one receiver lane;
automatically detecting whether the four-channel physical
connection or the single-channel physical connection has been
made to the host adapter;
automatically invoking a default four-channel protocol in
response to detecting the four-channel physical connection has
been made or an alternative single-channel protocol in response
to detecting the single-channel physical connection has been
made; and
communicating from the host adapter over the network
using the selected one of the default, four-channel protocol and
the alternative, single-channel protocol using the same host
adapter.
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Chang
Wong
Barbieri
US 2009/0116472 Al
US 2010/0097209 Al
US 2010/0296559 Al
2
May 7, 2009
Apr. 22, 2010
Nov. 25, 2010
Appeal2015-002995
Application 13/541,483
REJECTIONS
Claims 1-3 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Barbieri and Wong. (Final Act. 2-6.)
Claim 4 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Barbieri and Chang. (Final Act. 6-7.)
Claim 5 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Barbieri and "Background of the Related Art" as stated in
the Application. (Final Act. 7-8.)
ISSUES
(1) Whether the Examiner erred in finding the combination of
Barbieri and Wong teaches or suggests "selectively connecting a host
adapter to a network using a four-channel physical connection or a single-
channel physical connection, wherein each channel includes one transmitter
lane and one receiver lane," as recited in independent claim 1.
(2) Whether the Examiner erred in finding Barbieri teaches or
suggests "supplying Vital Product Data (VPD) to the host adapter from a
cable connecting the host adapter to the network ... ,"as recited in
dependent claims 2 and 3.
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner's rejections in light of Appellants'
arguments the Examiner has erred. We disagree with Appellants'
conclusions and we adopt as our own: (1) the findings and reasons set forth
by the Examiner in the action from which this appeal is taken (Final Act. 2-
8) and (2) the reasons set forth by the Examiner in the Examiner's Answer in
response to Appellants' Appeal Brief. (Ans. 2-12.) We concur with the
3
Appeal2015-002995
Application 13/541,483
conclusions reached by the Examiner, and we highlight the following for
emphasis. 2
A. "selectively connecting a host adapter to a network using a four-
channel physical connection or a single-channel physical connection,
wherein each channel includes one transmitter lane and one receiver
l " ane ...
In rejecting independent claim 1, the Examiner relies primarily on
Barbieri, finding Barbieri teaches or suggests all limitations. (Final Act. 2-
4.) With regard to the limitation "wherein each channel includes one
transmitter lane and one receiver lane" in particular, the Examiner finds
Barbieri 's teaching of "transceiver modules" at least suggests both a
transmitter lane and a receiver lane for each channel of the transceiver
module, because "a transceiver is able to transmit and receive data." (Final
Act. 3.) The Examiner additionally finds Wong expressly teaches a "channel
includes one transmitter lane and one receiver lane." (Final Act. 4 (citing
Wong i-f 37).) The Examiner then finds the combination of Wong with
Barbieri would have been obvious "to specify a transceiver has two lines as
taught by Wong," and the motivation for such combination would have been
"to transmit and receive data simultaneously." (Final Act. 4.)
Appellants argue the Examiner's findings are in error because
"Barbieri fails to disclose 'a single-channel physical connection."' (App. Br.
11.) In particular, Appellants argue that, although Barbieri discloses a
"single-channel card," Barbieri "discloses that the 'single channel card' is
'de-multiplexed over a plurality of lanes." (App. Br. 11 (citing Barbieri i-fi-19
2 Only those arguments made by Appellants have been considered in this
decision. Arguments Appellants did not make in the briefs have not been
considered and are deemed to be waived. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv).
4
Appeal2015-002995
Application 13/541,483
and 20).) Appellants further argue "Barbieri's network port 112 couples to
either a single channel card or a multi-channel card, but always uses all four
lanes." (App. Br. 12.) Thus, Appellants contend, Barbieri's teaching does
not fall within the scope of claim 1 because "the 'single-channel connection'
of [Appellants'] claim 1 is expressly limited to 'one transmitter lane and one
receiver lane."' (App. Br. 11 (emphasis added).) The Examiner responds by
noting that Appellants' argument "is focused on the operation of [Barbieri's]
networking device instead of the connection between the network and the
networking device, so ... [Appellants'] argument is not relevant to claim 1."
(Ans. 9 (emphases added).)
We agree with the Examiner, and are not persuaded by Appellants'
arguments. As the Examiner finds, Barbieri teaches a networking device
with either a "single channel card having one transceiver or a multi-channel
card having multiple transceivers." (Ans. 9.) This is depicted in Figure 1 of
Barbieri, which "illustrates an example of a line card 102 that is configured
to selectively receive either a multi-channel transceiver module card 104
having four 10 GbE [Gigabit Ethernet] interfaces 106 or a single channel
transceiver module card 108 having a single 50 GbE interface 110 in the
same network port 112." (Barbieri i-f 12 (emphases added).) Thus, as the
Examiner correctly finds, the connection of Barbieri's "networking device"
(depicted as item 202 in Figure 2) to a network is via either a "four-channel
physical connection or a single-channel physical connection," as recited in
claim 1. (Ans. 9-10; see also Barbieri Figs. 1 and 2 (depicting multi-
channel transceiver module cards with four network interfaces and single-
channel transceiver module cards with only one network interface).) The
fact that, within the networking device itself, data from the single-channel
5
Appeal2015-002995
Application 13/541,483
physical connection is de-multiplexed and processed over four lanes does
not remove Barbieri's teachings from the scope of claim 1. We are,
therefore, not persuaded by Appellants' argument the Examiner erred in
finding Barbieri teaches or suggests a "single-channel physical connection."
Appellants also argue the Examiner's combination of Barbieri with
Wong is improper because "modifying Barbieri according to Wong would
make Barbieri unsatisfactory for its intended purpose" in that "Barbieri
would only be able to operate with a single lane channel and could not
operate with multiple channels." (App. Br. 13.) We disagree with
Appellants' arguments, which are again focused on the internal operation of
Barbieri' s networking device instead of the physical connections between
the host adapter and the network, as recited in claim 1. As the Examiner
finds, and we agree, in disclosing both a "four-channel" and a "single-
channel" physical connection, Barbieri discloses transceiver modules that
"include a SFP (small form-factor pluggable transceiver) module." (Ans.
10.) As the Examiner further finds, "[i]t is well known in the art that the
SFP module has a transmitter and a receiver for transmitting and receiving
data, so it is strongly suggested that the transceiver module may have a
transmit lane and a receive lane." (Ans. 10 (emphases added).) Thus,
modifying Barbieri with Wong would provide a transmitter lane and a
receiver lane for each incoming channel of the network port (illustrated in
Figure 2 of Barbieri as "SFP" transceiver modules). This would not change
the principle of operation of Barbieri with regard to data processing internal
to the networking device (that is, demultiplexing data from the single-
channel transceiver module).
6
Appeal2015-002995
Application 13/541,483
We are, therefore, not persuaded by Appellants' arguments the
Examiner erred in finding the combination of Barbieri and Wong teaches or
suggests "selectively connecting a host adapter to a network using a four-
channel physical connection or a single-channel physical connection,
wherein each channel includes one transmitter lane and one receiver lane
... ," as recited in claim 1.
For the foregoing reasons, we are not persuaded of error in the
Examiner's 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of independent claim 1 or
dependent claim 5, which is not argued separately, and we, therefore, sustain
the rejection of these claims.
B. "supplying Vital Product Data (VPD) to the host adapter from a
cable connecting the host adapter to the network . .. "
With regard to dependent claims 2 and 3, Appellants argue the
Examiner's findings are in error because "the rejection fails to provide any
evidence that Barbieri teaches 'supplying Vital Product Data (VPD) to the
host adapter from a cable.'' (App. Br. 14.) In particular, Appellants argue
"[ s ]ince Barbieri fails to mention a cable, Barbieri certainly does not teach
supplying VPD from a cable." (Id.)
We disagree. As the Examiner finds, and we agree, Barbieri
"explicitly discloses either a single channel transceiver card or a multi-
channel transceiver card is inserted into the networking device," and further
discloses "the networking device can be 'a router."' (Ans. 12 (citing
Barbieri i-fi-f 17, 28).) As Barbieri further discloses, the networking device
202 (e.g., router) transmits signals to the network through "cabling" that is
coupled to either the single-channel interface 110 (Barbieri i-f 14 and Fig. 1)
or a multi-channel interface 206 (Barbieri i-f 18 and Fig. 2). The "cabling"
may be "fiber optic cabling." (Barbieri i-f 18.) Thus, although Appellants
7
Appeal2015-002995
Application 13/541,483
may be correct that Barbieri "does not once mention a cable," Barbieri does
disclose a "cable connecting the host adapter to the network," as recited in
claims 2 and 3, by disclosing, inter alia, "fiber optic cabling" coupled to
transceiver modules.
For the foregoing reasons, we are not persuaded of error in the
Examiner's 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of dependent claims 2 and 3, or
claim 4, which is not argued separately. We, therefore, sustain the rejection
of claims 2--4.
DECISION
For the above reasons, the Examiner's rejections of claims 1-5 are
affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED
8