Ex Parte Hofmann et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardSep 16, 2014

12551590 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 16, 2014)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte RICHARD GERARD HOFMANN and MARK MICHAEL SCHAFFER ____________ Appeal 2012-006094 Application 12/551,5901 Technology Center 2100 ____________ Before STEPHEN C. SIU, BRETT C. MARTIN, and JENNIFER L. McKEOWN, Administrative Patent Judges. McKEOWN, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s final rejection of claims 1, 2, 5, 7, 8, and 13. App. Br. 3. Claims 3, 4, 6, 14, and 27–32 are objected to and claims 9–12, 15–26, 33, 34, and 36–47 are allowed. App. Br. 3. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants’ invention is directed to a method of communicating over a bus including concurrently transmitting a first and second data types over 1 The real party in interest is QUALCOMM Incorporated. Appeal 2012-006094 Application 12/551,590 2 first and second sub-channels of the transmit channel of a bus while also receiving data over a receive channel of the bus. See Abstract. Claim 1 is illustrative and is reproduced below: 1. A method of communicating over a bus, the method comprising: transmitting a first data type for one of a read or write operation, over a first sub-channel of a transmit channel of the bus while concurrently transmitting, for said one of a read or write operation, a second data type over a second sub-channel of the transmit channel of the bus; and receiving data over a receive channel of the bus while transmitting the first data type or the second data type over the transmit channel. THE REJECTION The Examiner rejected claims 1, 2, 5, 7, 8, and 13 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Revilla (US 5,925,118; July 20, 1999). Ans. 4–5. CONTENTIONS The Examiner here finds that Revilla discloses each limitation of claim 1. Ans. 4. On the other hand, the Appellants contend that the Examiner improperly construed the terms “bus” and “sub-channel.” App. Br. 7–14. According to Appellants, lines that control a bus or indicate the status of a bus, such as Revilla’s transfer qualifiers, are outside the scope of the claimed bus. App. Br. 7–10. Additionally, Appellants maintain that the claimed sub-channels must be independently controlled and this feature is absent from Revilla. App. Br. 10–14. Appeal 2012-006094 Application 12/551,590 3 ISSUES Did the Examiner err in finding that Revilla discloses: transmitting a first data type for one of a read or write operation, over a first sub-channel of a transmit channel of the bus while concurrently transmitting, for said one of a read or write operation, a second data type over a second sub-channel of the transmit channel of the bus[,] as recited in claim 1? ANALYSIS Claims 1, 2, 5, 7, 8, and 13 Based on the record before us, we find that the Examiner did not err in rejecting claim 1 as anticipated by Revilla. Further, we agree with the Examiner’s findings and adopt them as our own. Appellants here do not challenge the disclosures of Revilla, but instead contend that the Examiner erred in construing the claim terms “bus” and “sub-channel.” See App. Br. 7–14. Appellants in particular argue that the claimed “bus” should be construed as “a path to carry data from one component to another, and that the lines that control the busses, and indicate the status of the busses, are outside of the ordinary usage of ‘bus.’” App. Br. 9; see also App. Br 8 (noting that a skilled artisan would understand that data on a bus is “for use by the receiving component (Fig. 3, item 104) in, for example, performing the write or read task.”). We disagree. As the Examiner explains, It is well known in the art for a bus to transmit anyone or all types of information that can be communicated between components, including: data, addresses, and control information. This is commonly accomplished by using Appeal 2012-006094 Application 12/551,590 4 either/both “type” specific busses (such as an address bus, control bus, data bus) or busses capable of transmitting various “types” of information (such as multiplex busses). Ans. 6. In other words, a skilled artisan would understand that a bus is not limited to transmitting only a particular data type. Moreover, Appellants reliance on the naming convention of the Specification and Revilla is unwarranted. See App. Br. 8–9. The Specification here expressly identifies that transfer qualifiers, such as Revilla’s transfer qualifiers, are transmitted over the bus of the invention. See e.g., Specification ¶¶28–30 (defining transfer qualifiers and identifying that the transfer qualifiers are “broadcast on the transmit channel 108 [i.e. the bus].”); ¶33(“The transfer tag may be included in the transfer qualifiers broadcast on the transmit channel 108.”); ¶¶34–35 (identifying Tables 1 and 2 as an example of a bus protocol). We are therefore unpersuaded that the data transmitted over the claimed bus would exclude Revilla’s transfer qualifiers. Equally unconvincing is Appellants’ argument that the claimed sub- channel must be independently controllable. Appellants maintain that the Specification defines that the claimed sub-channel must be capable of being independently controlled. See App. Br. 10 (citing Spec. ¶46). The cited “definition” though merely describes that the sub-channels may be independently controlled. See Ans. 7; see also Specification ¶46 (“[t]he term ‘sub-channel’ refers to a group of wires or conductors which may be controlled independently of the other wires or conductors in the channel.”). In other words, in some instances the sub-channels may be independently controlled but it is not required. Appeal 2012-006094 Application 12/551,590 5 Appellants also assert “the term ‘sub-channel’ is used in a consistent manner throughout the Specification, namely a group of wires that can be individually controlled and, therefore, this meaning controls the interpretation of ‘sub-channel’ in the claims.” App. Br. 11. While we agree with Appellants that the cited embodiment does include independently controlled sub-channels, this description alone does not demonstrate a clear intent to define the claimed sub-channels. See Thorner v. Sony Computer Ent. Am. LLC, 669 F.3d 1362, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (“It is not enough for a patentee to simply disclose a single embodiment or use a word in the same manner in all embodiments, the patentee must clearly express an intent to redefine the term.” (citations omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted)). We are not persuaded then that Revilla fails to teach the claimed sub- channels recited in claim 1. Appellants present this same argument regarding independently controllable sub-channels for claim 13, which we also find unpersuasive. Therefore, we find that the Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 1 and 13, as well as dependent claims 2, 5, 7, and 8, not argued separately, as anticipated by Revilla. Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of these claims. CONCLUSION The Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 1, 2, 5, 7, 8, and 13. DECISION The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1, 2, 5, 7, 8, and 13 is affirmed. Appeal 2012-006094 Application 12/551,590 6 No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv). AFFIRMED tj