Ex Parte Geva et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardSep 24, 201814688350 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 24, 2018) Copy Citation 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 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation