Ex Parte Geva et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 24, 2018

14688350 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 24, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
14/688,350 04/16/2015
16501 7590
Timothy M. Honeycutt
Attorney at Law
37713 Parkway Oaks Ln.
Magnolia, TX 77355
09/26/2018
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Dror Geva
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.
AMDI:307\HON 8245
EXAMINER
SNYDER, STEVEN G
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2184
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/26/2018 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):
timhoney@sprynet.com
timhoneycutt@earthlink.net
elizabethahoneycutt@earthlink.net
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte DROR GEV A, EY AL LISER, and ROMAN MOSTINSKI
Appeal2018-003028
Application 14/688,350 1
Technology Center 2100
Before JENNIFER S. BISK, JOHN A. EVANS, and JOHN D. HAMANN,
Administrative Patent Judges.
EV ANS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the
Examiner's final rejection of Claims 1-21. Br. 3. We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE. 2
1 Appellants identify Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. as the real party in
interest. Br. 5.
2 Rather than reiterate the arguments of the Appellants and the Examiner,
we refer to the Appeal Brief (filed August 11, 2017, "Br."), the Examiner's
Answer (mailed November 16, 2017, "Ans."), the Final Action (mailed
April 21, 2017, "Final Act)," and the Specification (filed April 16, 2015,
"Spec.") for their respective details.
Appeal2018-003028
Application 14/688,350
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The claims relate to semiconductor chips. See Abstract.
Invention
Claims 1, 6, 10, 16, and 21 are independent. An understanding of the
invention can be derived from a reading of illustrative Claim 1, which is
reproduced below with some formatting added:
1. A semiconductor chip, comprising:
a first interface controller;
a first physical layer connected to the first interface
controller;
a second interface controller;
a second physical layer connected to the second
interface controller; and
a switch connected between the first interface
controller and the second interface controller and the first
physical layer and the second physical layer, the switch
being operable in one mode to route signals to/from the
first interface controller via the first physical layer and
route signals to/from the second interface controller via
the second physical layer and in another mode to route
signals to/from both the first interface controller and the
second interface controller via the first physical layer.
2
Appeal2018-003028
Application 14/688,350
Arimilli et al.
("Arimilli")
Hall
References and Rejections
US 2010/0122011 Al
US 2013/0275629 Al
May 13, 2010
Oct. 17, 2013
Claims 1-21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103 as being
unpatentable over Applicant's Admitted Prior Art ("AAP A"), Arimilli, and
Hall. Final Act. 3-10.
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the rejections of Claims 1-21 in light of
Appellants' arguments that the Examiner erred. We consider Appellants'
arguments seriatim, as they are presented in the Appeal Brief, pages 19-28.
CLAIMS 1-21: OBVIOUSNESS OVER AAP A, ARIMILLI, AND HALL
Claim 1
The prior art fails to teach piggybacking
The Examiner finds neither AAP A, nor Arimilli, teach a second mode
wherein signals to and from both interface controllers are routed via the first
physical layer. Final Act. 5. The Examiner finds this teaching is supplied
by Hall. Id.
Appellants contend Hall does not disclose "in another mode to route
signals to/from both the first interface controller and the second interface
controller via the first physical layer," as recited in Claim 1. Br. 25.
Appellants argue Hall teaches that when main link switching circuit 306 is
activated, Lane 2 signals from the display port source 302 or USB 3.0 TX
3
Appeal2018-003028
Application 14/688,350
signals are routed on the differential pair labeled "Lane 2 or USB 3.0 TX" in
the display port cable. Id. Appellants note the word "or" and the fact that
the specification of Hall makes clear that the Lane 2 or USB 3. 0 TX
differential pair or the Lane 3 or USB 3.0 RX differential pair are used to
convey Lane 2 signals or USB 3.0 signals, i.e., not Lane 2 and USB 3.0
signals, as would be the case in the claims. Id.
The Examiner finds Hall Figure 3 discloses signal paths "Lane O" and
"Lane 1" in addition to the signal paths marked "Lane 2 OR USB 3 .0 TX"
and "Lane 3 OR USB 3.0 RX." Ans. 11. The Examiner finds Lanes 0-3
pass through a single PHY (i.e., switch 306) such that there is a mode
wherein a single PHY routes signals from both the display port controller
and the USB controller. Id.
We disagree with the Examiner. Hall's Figure 3 discloses a "Display
Port Source Device 302" from which signals, marked Lanes 0-3, emerge.
Lanes 2 and 3 are shown to enter a switch, i.e., "Main Link Switching
Circuit 306." Contrary to the Examiner's finding, Lanes O and 1 bypass
switch 306. Thus, Hall cannot teach as the Examiner finds.
4
Appeal2018-003028
Application 14/688,350
!.'/'.VII.lit'!
1-• ..-:.._lr;$Jt~l'JO·:
Fig.3.
Figure 3 of Hall above showing a display port source
and a main link switching circuit.
In view of the foregoing, we decline to sustain the rejection of
independent Claim 1. Each of independent Claims 6, 10, 16, and 21 recites
commensurate limitations to the disputed limitation of Claim 1. In view of
the foregoing, we decline to sustain the rejection of the independent claims
or of the claims dependent therefrom.
Because we do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of Claims 1-21
for the reasons discussed supra, we need not address Appellants' additional
arguments. See Beloit Corp. v. Valmet Oy, 742 F.2d 1421, 1423 (Fed. Cir.
1984) (Finding an administrative agency is at liberty to reach a decision
based on "a single dispositive issue.").
5
Appeal2018-003028
Application 14/688,350
DECISION
The rejection of Claims 1-21 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is reversed.
REVERSED
6