Ex Parte Jones et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardMay 12, 201713747205 (P.T.A.B. May. 12, 2017) Copy Citation United States Patent and Trademark Office 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 APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO. 4860P15034 5290 EXAMINER ZAMAN, FAISAL M ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2185 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 13/747,205 01/22/2013 Girault W. Jones 05/15/201745217 7590 APPLE INC./BSTZ BLAKELY SOKOLOFF TAYLOR & ZAFMAN LLP 1279 OAKMEAD PARKWAY SUNNYVALE, CA 94085-4040 05/15/2017 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 GIRAULT W. JONES, NATHAN A. JOHANNINGSMEIER, and CASEY L. HARDY Appeal 2017-000158 Application 13/747,205 Technology Center 2100 Before ST. JOHN COURTENAY III, THU A. DANG, and LARRY J. HUME, Administrative Patent Judges. DANG, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL I. STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s Non- Final Rejection of claims 1—8 and 23—30. Claims 9-22 have been canceled. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm-in-part. Appeal 2017-000158 Application 13/747,205 A. INVENTION According to Appellants, the invention relates to “data bus communications and, in particular, to techniques that can transfer multiple real-time digital audio channels using a relatively small or low complexity bus interface circuit and low bus power consumption.” (Spec. 11). B. REPRESENTATIVE CLAIM Claim 1 is exemplary: 1. A method for performing a time-division multiplexed data bus protocol having successive time slots 0, 1, 2,... N in each frame interval, where N is an integer greater than two, the method comprising the following operations performed over a plurality of frame intervals, by a first bus device and a second bus device that are coupled to a bus data line: driving a frame marker on the bus data line by the first bus device in slot 0, wherein the frame marker has a plurality of framer marker bits each being driven by the first bus device in a respective instance of slot 0 in the frame intervals; driving the bus data line with first device data in slot 1, by the first bus device, wherein the first device data represents sensor data produced by the first bus device; and driving the bus data line with second device data in an assigned slot other than slots 0 and 1, by the second bus device, wherein the second device data represents sensor data produced by the second bus device. C. REJECTIONS 1. Claims 1—5, 8, 23—27, and 30 stand rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over the teachings of Kasai et al. (U.S. 2011/0142066 Al, pub. June 16, 2011) ("Kasai") and Park et al. (U.S. 2010/0142510 Al, pub. June 10, 2010) (“Park”). 2 Appeal 2017-000158 Application 13/747,205 2. Claims 6 and 28 stand rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over the teachings of Kasai, Park and Danielson (U.S. 6,552,607 Bl, iss. Apr. 22, 2003). 3. Claims 7 and 29 stand rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over the teachings of Kasai, Park and Husted et al. (U.S. 7,982,549, iss. July 19, 2011) ("Husted"). II. ISSUE The principal issue before us is whether the Examiner erred in finding that the combination of Kasai and Park teaches or would have suggested: “driving the bus data line with first device data in slot 1, by the first bus device, wherein the first device data represents sensor data produced by the first bus device” (claim 1, emphasis added). III. FINDINGS OF FACT The following Findings of Fact (FF) are shown by a preponderance of the evidence. Kasai 1. Kasai discloses that during an idle period the voltage level is set at a non-communication level. (| 92). 2. In Kasai, when the transmitting signal output circuit 29 is not outputting transmitted data, the output impedance is in a high state. (1140). Park 3. Park discloses sensor nodes transmitting data in a time slot allocated to the corresponding sensor node. (120). 4. Park’s sensor nodes include a channel decision unit, a mode setting unit, a transmitter and a receiver. (| 21, Fig. 1). 3 Appeal 2017-000158 Application 13/747,205 Danielson 5. Danielson discloses modulation techniques that lend itself to time division multiplexing. (Col. 9, 40-46). Husted 6. Husted discloses the corresponding period of an ideal clock is half a slot period. (Col. 10, 11—14). IV. ANALYSIS In reaching this decision, we consider all evidence presented and all arguments actually made by Appellants. We do not consider arguments that Appellants could have made but chose not to make in the Briefs, and we deem any such arguments waived. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv). 103(a) Rejection of Claims 1, 2, 4, 23, 24, and 26 Independent Claims 1 and 23 Appellants argue: The rejection of claims 1 and 23 is thus improper, because changing the Identification signal of Kasai to contain sensor data results in the slave devices being unable to detect in an orderly fashion when to drive the bus, such that the bus protocol of Kasai becomes inoperative. (App. Br. 8). Appellants further argue: The office action has not provided any explanation for how Kasai's bus protocol could still work, without the Identification signal being what it is supposed to be. A plain reading of Kasai indicates that the bus protocol becomes inoperative when the slot containing the Identification signal now contains content (e.g., sensor data) that would be unknown to all of the other nodes, 4 Appeal 2017-000158 Application 13/747,205 because in that case the order in which the nodes should be driving the bus with their respective Data signal becomes undefined (contrary to the goal stated in para. [0085]-[0086] of Kasai). (App. Br. 9). The Examiner finds: Contrary to Appellant's argument, the proposed § 103 combination was rather to allow a sensor node 101 (as taught in Park) to perform master functions (e.g., sending an initiating beacon signal to another sensor device 111 on the bus, along with sensor data), rather than eliminate the master functionality altogether, as Appellant has argued. . . . [I]n the proposed combination, an Identification Signal would still be transmitted on the sensor bus to notify which sensor device is supposed to send data in the next time slot. (Ans. 2-3). We have considered all of Appellants’ arguments and evidence presented. However, we disagree with Appellants’ contentions regarding the Examiner’s rejections of claims 1 and 23 over Kasai and Park. We agree with and adopt the Examiner’s findings, and find no error with the Examiner’s conclusion that claims 1 and 23 would have been obvious over the combined teachings. As a preliminary matter of claim construction, we give the claims their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the Specification. See In re Morris, 111 F.3d 1048, 1054 (Fed. Cir. 1997). Although we interpret claims broadly but reasonably in light of the Specification, we nonetheless must not import limitations from the Specification into the claims. See Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1323 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc). 5 Appeal 2017-000158 Application 13/747,205 By contending Kasai’s bus protocol would become inoperative when the Identification Signal contains sensor data (App. Br. 9), Appellants appear to be arguing that it would not have been obvious to modify Kasai’s data to include sensor data. However, we note Appellants do not direct attention to any specific definition for “sensor data” in the Specification. In fact, the literal term “sensor data” is not found in the Specification. Thus, although Appellants contend “changing the Identification signal of Kasai to contain sensor data results in the slave devices being unable to detect in an orderly fashion” (App. Br. 8), such contention is not commensurate with the scope of the claims, because the claims are silent regarding any detection in an orderly fashion by slave devices. In fact, claim 1 merely recites that first and second “device data” are used to drive the bus line, wherein each data merely “represents” a particular type of data (“sensor data”) produced respectively by a first or second bus device. Giving the term its broadest, reasonable interpretation, claim 1 merely requires driving a bus data line with first and second device data, wherein the first and second device data represent a particular type of data produced by the first and second bus device.1 We find no error with the Examiner’s reliance on Kasai for teaching and suggesting “driving the bus data line” with “device data,” by a bus device, wherein the device data “represents content produced” by the bus device (Non-Final Act. 3, emphasis added). That is, we agree with the 1 Because “applicants may amend claims to narrow their scope, a broad construction during prosecution creates no unfairness to the applicant or patentee.” In re ICON Health and Fitness, Inc., 496 F.3d 1374, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (citation omitted). 6 Appeal 2017-000158 Application 13/747,205 Examiner’s finding that Kasai discloses and suggests driving a bus data line with device data by a bus device, wherein the device data represents a particular type of data produced by the bus device (id.). Although the Examiner concedes “Kasai does not expressly disclose wherein the content from the first device is sensor data” (id.), the Examiner relies on Park for such disclosure (id. at 4; FF 3—4). We note Appellants do not dispute that Park discloses “sensor data” (App. Br. 8). The test for obviousness is what the combined teachings of Kasai and Park would have suggested to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Here, there is no evidence in the record that substituting Park’s sensor data to Kasai’s “content” would have been beyond the level of ordinary skill of an artisan. Appellants present no evidence that substituting Park’s data (sensor data) in place of Kasai’s data (content) would have been “uniquely challenging or difficult for one of ordinary skill in the art.” Leapfrog Enters., Inc. v. Fisher-Price, Inc., 485 F.3d 1157, 1162 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (citing KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 420 (2007)). Instead, on this record, we find the Examiner’s findings are reasonable, because the skilled artisan would “be able to fit the teachings of multiple patents together like pieces of a puzzle” since the skilled artisan is “a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton.” KSR at 420—21. Therefore, Appellants have not persuaded us the Examiner erred in finding that the cited references would have at least suggested the contested limitation: “the first device data represents sensor data produced by the first bus device” (claim 1) (emphasis added). 7 Appeal 2017-000158 Application 13/747,205 Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of independent claims 1 and 23 as being obvious over the combination of Kasai and Park. Dependent Claims 2 and 24 Regarding claims 2 and 24, Appellants argue: This rejection however, fails to recognize that Applicant's claim language is referring to a specific action by the first bus device in that it presents essentially an open circuit to the bus data line. This level of detail is not discussed in Kasai in connection with the master node 12. (App. Br. 10). We are not persuaded by Appellants’ arguments, and find no error with the Examiner’s reliance on Kasai for teaching and suggesting the contested limitation (Non-Final Act. 4). We find Kasai’s high state output impedance, when the transmitting signal output circuit 29 is not outputting transmitted data, teaches or at least suggests “essentially an open circuit,” as recited in claim 2 and 24. (FF 1—2). That is, a high impedance state is not a state of 1 or 0, which, contrary to Appellants’ contention, is similar to an open circuit. We note the use of such tri-state logic (low, high, and high impedance state), as evidenced by Kasai (FF 1—2), is notoriously well known in the art with regard to bus driver circuits and buffers. Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of dependent claim 2 and 24 as obvious over the combination of Kasai and Park. Dependent Claims 4 and 26 Regarding claims 4 and 24, Appellants argue: Kasai appears to require that the bus data line needs to be driven during an idle period, to some known voltage level that is different than any of the communication levels. That teaches 8 Appeal 2017-000158 Application 13/747,205 against the bus data line being essentially floating while no bus devices are driving it. (App. Br. 11). Appellants’ Specification equates the claim terms “essentially floating” and “essentially an open circuit.” (Spec. 120, “In other words, the bus data line is in a high impedance state (high-Z) so that its voltage can essentially float, while no bus device is driving the data line, i.e. all of the bus devices are presenting essentially open circuits to the bus data line, by neither pulling the line down to a logic 0 nor up to a logic 1 in the case of binary signaling.). For reasons similar to our analysis of claim term “essentially an open circuit” above, we affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claims 4 and 26. We also affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claims 3, 5, 8, 27 and 30, because Appellants have not presented arguments regarding these claims. Arguments not made are waived. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv). 103(a) Rejection of Dependent Claims 6 and 28 Regarding claim 6 Appellants argue “Danielson is directed to a pulse with modulation amplifier that is driving two loads through the same conductor, not a time-division multiplexed data bus........ Danielson is therefore non-analogous art.” (App. Br. 12). However, we agree with the Examiner’s finding Danielson is related to time-division multiplexing of data over a common bus. (FF 5, Ans. 4). Based on this record, we find no error in the Examiner’s rejection of dependent claims 6 and 26 as obvious over the combination of Danielson, Kasai and Park. 9 Appeal 2017-000158 Application 13/747,205 103(a) Rejection of Dependent Claims 7 and 29 Regarding claim 7, the Examiner finds: Husted states in Column 10, lines 11-14, that "the ideal... clock would have a corresponding period..., which may be half of a (Bluetooth) slot period’. As can be seen, the period of the clock is half of a slot period. This is equivalent to the claimed feature of "wherein each slot (i.e., a Bluetooth slot period) is coextensive with a halfcycle of a clock cycle (i.e., a corresponding clock period)". (Ans. 5). Appellants contend the Examiner’s finding in Husted “does not teach or suggest that each slot is coextensive with a half cycle of a clock signal.” (App. Br. 12). Although we agree with the Examiner that Husted teaches a clock cycle corresponds to half a slot period (Ans. 5, FF 6), claim 7 recites “a slot is coextensive with a half-cycle of a clock signal. . . .” (Cf. claim 29: “each slot is coextensive with a half-cycle of a clock signal....”) Thus, the claim’s clock cycle is coextensive with 2 slots, not half a slot, as taught in Husted. (FF 6). The Examiner has not established the Husted reference teaches each slot being coextensive with a half-cycle of a clock signal.2 Therefore, on this record, we are constrained to reverse the Examiner’s rejection of dependent claims 7 and 29. 2 “Coextensive” is defined as “Having the same limits, boundaries, or scope.” Webster’s II New Riverside University Dictionary, 1988). 10 Appeal 2017-000158 Application 13/747,205 V. CONCLUSION AND DECISION We affirm the Examiner’s rejections of claims 1—6, 8, 23—28, and 30 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). However, we reverse the Examiner’s rejection of claims 7 and 29 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). 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-IN-PART 11 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation