Ex Parte Jones et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

May 12, 2017

13747205 (P.T.A.B. May. 12, 2017)

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