Ex Parte Hartman

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 31, 2016

12690819 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 31, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
12/690,819 01/20/2010 Charles Andrew Hartman
56436 7590 04/04/2016
Hewlett Packard Enterprise
3404 E. Harmony Road
Mail Stop 79
Fort Collins, CO 80528
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.
82260452 8565
EXAMINER
DAVID, MATTHEW
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2615
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
04/04/2016 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):
hpe.ip.mail@hpe.com
mkraft@hpe.com
chris.mania@hpe.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte CHARLES ANDREW HARTMAN
Appeal2014-004717
Application 12/690819
Technology Center 2100
Before DAVID M. KOHUT, JOHN A. EVANS, and
SCOTT E. BAIN, Administrative Patent Judges.
EV ANS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant1 seeks our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the
Examiner's final rejection of Claims 1-10, 12-16, 18, and 20.2 (Appeal Br.
5). We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
1 According to Appellant, the real party in interest is Hewlett-Packard
Development Company, LP. Appeal Br. 2.
2 Claims 11, 17, and 19 were previously cancelled (App. Br. 2) and the
Examiner indicates that Claims 21-23 would be allowable if rewritten in
independent form including all limitations of the base and any intervening
claims (Final Act. 16).
Appeal2014-004717
Application 12/ 690819
We AFFIRM.3
THE INVENTION
The claims relate to a method and system for arbitration of signals in a
multichip system. See Abstract.
Claims 1, 6, and 14 are independent. The claims have not been
argued separately and therefore stand or fall together. 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(l)(iv). An understanding of the invention can be derived from a
reading of exemplary Claim 1, which is reproduced below with disputed
limitations italicized.
1. A method of bus arbitration for sideband signals in a
multichip system comprising:
packaging at least one sideband signal as a micropacket,
wherein micropacket size is variable over time based on bus
characteristics;
holding the micropacket in an outgoing sideband register;
monitoring a bus for a quiescent state, the bus having a plurality
of links to other chips in the multi chip system; and issuing the
micropacket from the outgoing sideband register when the bus is in a
quiescent state.
3 Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellants and the Examiner, we
refer to the Appeal Brief (filed October 14, 2013, "Appeal Br."), the Reply
Brief (filed February 26, 2014, Reply Br."), the Examiner's Answer (mailed
January 3, 2014, "Ans."), the Final Action (mailed June 18, 2013, "Final
Act."), and the Specification (filed January 20, 2010, "Spec.") for the
respective details.
2
Appeal2014-004717
Application 12/ 690819
REFERENCES AND REJECTIONS
The Examiner relies upon the prior art as follows:
Dunnihoo
Limb et al.
Blasbalg et al.
Howard et al.
Slaight
Wittmann
Dabagh et al.
us 6,185,641
US 6,804,251 B 1
us 3,541,524
us 7 ,450,579
US 7 ,822,907 B2
US 7 ,991,000 B2
US 8,214,509 B2
Feb. 6,2001
Oct. 12, 2004
Nov. 11, 2008
Nov. 11, 2008
Oct. 26, 2010
Aug. 2, 2011
July 3, 2012
Compaq, Universal Serial Bus Specification Rev. 2.0 (Apr. 27, 2000).
The claims stand rejected as follows:
1. Claims 1 and 3-5 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious
over Slaight, Blasbalg, Compaq, Limb, and the State of the Art
evidenced by Dabagh, Howard, and Wittmann. Final Act. 2-5.
2. Claim 2 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over
Slaight, Blasbalg, Compaq, Dunnihoo, Limb, and the State of the Art
evidenced by Dabagh, Howard, and Wittman. Final Act. 6.
3. Claims 6, 8-10, 12,, and 13 stand rejected as under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
obvious over Slaight, Blasbalg, Limb, and the State of the Art
evidenced by Dabagh, Howard, and Wittman. Final Act. 7-9.
4. Claim 7 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over
Slaight, Blasbalg, Limb, Dunnihoo, and the State of the Art evidenced
by Dabagh, Howard, and Wittman. Final Act. 10-11.
3
Appeal2014-004717
Application 12/ 690819
5. Claims 14, 16, 18, and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
obvious in view of Slaight, Blasbalg, Limb, and the State of the Art
evidenced by Dabagh, Howard, and Wittmann. Final Act. 11-14.
6. Claim 15 stands rejected as under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) obvious over
Slaight, Blasbalg, Limb, Dunnihoo, and the State of the Art evidenced
by Dabagh, Howard, and Wittmann. Final Act. 15-16.
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the rejections of Claims 1-10, 12-16, 18, and 20-
23 in light of Appellant's arguments that the Examiner has erred. We have
considered in this Decision only those arguments Appellant actually raised
in the Brief. Any other arguments which Appellant could have made but
chose not to make in the Brief are deemed to be waived. See 3 7 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(l)(iv). We are not persuaded that Appellant identifies reversible
error. Upon consideration of the arguments presented in the Appeal Brief,
we agree with the Examiner and adopt as our own the findings and reasons
set forth in the rejection from which this appeal is taken and in the
Examiner's Answer. We provide the following explanation to highlight and
address specific arguments and findings primarily for emphasis.
CLAIM 1
Appellant contends the disclosure in Compaq of packets "variable in
size" does not teach the claim 1 's limitation: "micropacket size is variable
over time based on bus characteristics." Appeal Br. 7; Reply Br. 5.
4
Appeal2014-004717
Application 12/ 690819
Appellant further argues Limb's teaching that a packet too large for a bus
slot may be issued in two parts fails to teach the size of "a packet" that
varies over time. Appeal Br. 7; Reply Br. 5.
Appellant's arguments are not commensurate with the Examiner's
findings because the Examiner relies on a combination of Slaight and
Compaq to teach "variable over time," not Compaq and Limb. (Final Act 4;
Ans. 3). Appellant attacks each reference individually, App. Br 7, and fails
to address the Examiner's proposed combination of Slaight, Compaq, and
Limb. "[O]ne cannot show non-obviousness by attacking references
individually where ... the rejections are based on combinations of
references." In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 426 (CCPA 1981).
The Examiner finds the claimed "bus characteristics" may be defined
as "available time slots," in view of Appellant's disclosure "determining the
size of the micropackets based on the available timeslots." Ans. 2-3 (citing
Spec. i-f 39). The Examiner finds a combination of Slaight, Compaq, and
Limb teaches the claimed "variable over time based on bus characteristics."
Specifically, the Examiner finds Slaight teaches a USB packet and finds
Compaq teaches the data field of a USB packet may be variable in size.
Final Act. 4. Limb teaches a bus system where a bus agent both fragments
and concatenates packets, which is interpreted as "determining the size of' a
packet based on allocated (available) time slots. See Final Act. 4; Ans. 3.
We agree with the Examiner's finding. A serial bus, such as the USB,
taught by Slaight or Compaq, transmits packets sequentially. Therefore,
packets arrive at a given point in a time sequence. Limb teaches that the size
5
Appeal2014-004717
Application 12/ 690819
of a given packet is tailored to fit an available time slot on the bus (a bus
characteristic). Thus, the size of the various packets that arrive at a given
point will vary in time given the variable time slots available for the series of
packets, as required by claim 1. As such, we sustain the Examiner's
rejection of claim 1 over the combination of
CLAIMS 2-10, 12-16, 18, and 20
Appellant argues that claims 2-5 (Appeal Br. 7), claims 6, 8-10, 12,
and 13 (Appeal Br. 8), claim 7 (Appeal Br. 8), and claims 14--16, 18, and 20
(Appeal Br. 9) are allowable for ultimately the same reasons as independent
claim 1. In view of the foregoing discussion, we are not persuaded the
Examiner errs.
DECISION
The rejection of Ciaims 1-10, 12-16, 18, and 20 under 35 U.S.C. §
103 is 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
6