Ex Parte Lida

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Oct 27, 2017

14154908 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 27, 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.
14/154,908 01/14/2014 Eyran Lida V AS witch6CIP 6716
16759 7590
Active Knowledge Ltd.
P.O. Box 294
Kiryat Tivon, 36011
ISRAEL
EXAMINER
JANGBAHADUR, LAKERAM
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2469
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
10/31/2017 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):
ari@ activekn.com
gil@ activekn.com
taltiber@ gmail.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte EYRAN LIDA
Appeal 2017-001645
Application 14/154,90s1
Technology Center 2400
Before BRADLEY W. BAUMEISTER, JEREMY J. CURCURI, and
NABEEL U. KHAN, Administrative Patent Judges.
KHAN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the final rejection of
claims 1—16. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm-in-part.
1 Appellant identifies Valens Semiconductor Ltd. as the real party in interest.
App. Br. 3.
Appeal 2017-001645
Application 14/154,908
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The Invention
According to the Appellant, the invention relates to:
changing topology of an asymmetric network and operating end-
devices coupled to a self-configurable asymmetric network. The
self-configurable asymmetric network supports at least two
different network topologies and enables: displaying information
regarding end-devices that may be accessed via different network
topologies, selecting a network topology by setting the direction
of a self-configurable asymmetric link, and indicating a subset of
the end-devices that are accessible via the selected network
topology.
Spec., Abstract.
Exemplary independent claim 1 is reproduced below.
1. An asymmetric network comprising:
at least one self-configurable asymmetric link coupled to
at least four end-devices;
the asymmetric network supports different first and second
topologies based on opposite directions of the at least one self-
configurable asymmetric link; and
a user interface configured to receive, from a control
function, data regarding the end-devices that are accessible in the
different first and second topologies, and present the data.
References and Rejections
1. Claim 1 stands rejected under 35U.S.C. § 101 as being directed
to unpatentable subject matter. Final Act. 6.
2
Appeal 2017-001645
Application 14/154,908
2. Claims 1—6 and 10—122 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b)
for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter
which the Appellant regards as the invention. Id. at 8—9.
3. Claims 1 and 10 stand rejected on grounds of nonstatutory
obviousness-type double patenting over claims 8, 11, and 16 of
US 8,526,462 B2. Id. at 9-10.
4. Claim 1, 2, 6, 10, and 11 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Moura (US 6,104,727, issued Aug. 15, 2000)
and Gidwani (US 6,640,239 Bl, issued Oct. 28, 2003). Id. at 11—16.
5. Claims 3, 5, 7, 8, 12—14, and 16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Moura, Gidwani and Harada
(US 6,687,832 Bl, issued Feb. 3, 2004). Id. at 16-24.
6. Claim 4 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Moura, Gidwani, and Widera (US 2005/0146525 Al,
published July 7, 2005). Id. at 24—25.
7. Claims 9 and 15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Moura, Gidwani, Harada, and Widera. Id. at 25—26.
2 The header of the Final Action’s statement of rejection indicates that
claims 1—12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) as indefinite. However,
only claims 1,10, and their dependent claims are expressly addressed in the
body of the rejection. Claims 7, 8, and 9 were not expressly addressed in the
body of the rejection and do not contain the terms found indefinite in claims
1 and 10. Thus, we treat this rejection as being directed to only claims 1—6
and 10—12 and excluding claims 7, 8, and 9.
3
Appeal 2017-001645
Application 14/154,908
ANALYSIS
Rejection Under 35 U.S.C. § 101
The Examiner rejects claim 1 as directed to an unpatentable abstract
idea. Final Act. 6; Adv. Act. 4. Appellant does not present any arguments
against this rejection, thus waiving any arguments in this proceeding with
respect thereto. Accordingly, we summarily sustain dubitante the
Examiner’s rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Rejection Under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b)
Claim 1
Claim 1 recites “a user interface configured to receive, from a control
function, data regarding the end-devices that are accessible in the different
first and second topologies, and present the data.” App. Br. 18 (emphasis
added). The Examiner finds the term “control function” in claim 1 “is vague
and is not a term know[n] in the art, thus the claim is indefinite.” Ans. 2.
The Examiner also finds that “[i]t is unclear if the user interface is part of the
control function or not.” Id.
Appellant argues the term is not vague and points out that the
Specification describes the control function as follows: “Optionally, the
switch is a part of a network, and further comprising a control function
configured to change the network topology by changing the direction of the
at least on[e] self-configurable asymmetric port. Optionally, the control
function is implemented in the switch or in a device that is coupled to the
network.” Reply Br. 2 (citing Spec. 15:12—16).
We agree with Appellant. The Examiner has not shown by
preponderance of the evidence that the term “control function” would be
4
Appeal 2017-001645
Application 14/154,908
unclear or vague to a skilled artisan in light of the Specification describing
the control function as being implemented in a switch or network device and
its manner of use in changing the direction of the self-configurable
asymmetric port.
Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1 as
indefinite. For the same reasons, we also do not sustain the Examiner’s
rejection of claim 2—6, which depend from claim 1.
Claim 10
Claim 10 recites “the user interface is configured to display data
regarding the end-devices that are accessible via the at least two different
network topologies until operating at least one of the end-device [s] which
requires a specific topology.” App. Br. 20 (emphasis added). The Examiner
finds “[i]t is unclear as to what is meant by the term ‘until operating.’”
Ans. 3.
Appellant contends “a device can be operated or not operated. ‘Until
operating’ refers to the period when the device is not operated and until the
time the device is operated.” Reply Br. 2.
Appellant’s argument is persuasive. The claim limitation states that
“the user interface is configured to display data regarding the end devices. . .
until operating at least one of the end-device [s] which requires a specific
topology.” The skilled artisan would have been able to understand this
limitation and interpret it consistently with Appellant’s interpretation. In
other words, the user interface displays data regarding the end devices and
the two different network topologies supported by the self-configurable
asymmetric link, until the devices are operated in such a way that a specific
5
Appeal 2017-001645
Application 14/154,908
one of the two topologies would be required, and the user interface no longer
displays data.
Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 10
as indefinite. For the same reasons, we also do not sustain the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 1 land 12, which depend from claim 10.
Obviousness Type Double Patenting
The Examiner rejects claims 1 and 10 on the grounds of non-statutory
obviousness-type double patenting over claims 8, 11, and 16 of US Patent
No. 8,526,462 B2. Final Act. 9-10. Appellant does not present any
arguments against this rejection, thus waiving any arguments in this
proceeding with respect thereto. Accordingly, we summarily sustain this
double patenting rejection in this proceeding.
Rejections Under 35 U.S.C. § 103
The Examiner finds Moura discloses “at least one self-configurable
asymmetric link,” as recited in claim 1. Final Act. 11 (citing Moura 8:15—
20, 12:30—35, Figs. 1, 12a). In particular, the Examiner finds Moura teaches
a “self-configurable asymmetric link” by disclosing an asymmetric network
that supports different first and second throughputs (i.e. downstream data
traffic being higher than upstream traffic on the link). See Ans. 22—23.
Appellant argues that although Moura discloses an asymmetric link,
“Moura does not change the directionality of his asymmetric link, and thus
Moura is not equivalent to the claimed self-configurable asymmetric link.”
App. Br. 9. According to Appellant, in Moura, “a first direction
(downstream) always has a data rate that is greater than the second direction
(upstream). Moura does not disclose a link able to change its directionality
6
Appeal 2017-001645
Application 14/154,908
in a way that causes the first direction to have data rate that is smaller than
the second direction.” Id.
The Examiner responds that Appellant’s arguments rely on a feature
not recited in the claims, i.e. a self-configurable asymmetric link that is able
to flip its directionality. Ans. 24.
We are persuaded by Appellant’s argument. “[DJuring examination
proceedings, claims are given their broadest reasonable interpretation
consistent with the specification.” In re Hyatt, 211 F.3d 1367, 1372 (Fed.
Cir. 2000). The Patent Office applies to the verbiage of the proposed claims
the broadest reasonable meaning of the words in their ordinary usage as they
would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art, taking into account
whatever enlightenment by way of definitions or otherwise that may be
afforded by the written description contained in the applicant’s specification.
In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
The Specification states that “[t]he term ‘self-configurable
asymmetric link’ as used herein refers to a communication link capable of
transmitting either a high throughput in a first direction and a lower
throughput in the second direction, or a high throughput in the second
direction and a lower throughput in the first direction.” Spec. 6:18—22; see
also Figs. 2A—2C. Based on this express definition in Appellant’s
disclosure, we conclude that the broadest reasonable interpretation of the
term “self-configurable asymmetric link” requires the link to have the
capability to reverse its directionality, i.e. to be able to transmit higher
throughput in a first direction than a second direction and to be able to
reverse configuration so as to transmit higher throughput in the second
direction than the first direction.
7
Appeal 2017-001645
Application 14/154,908
The relied upon portions of Moura indicate that its link has the
capability to have a higher rate of data flowing in the downstream direction
than in the upstream direction. See Moura 8:18—19 (“Downstream data
traffic is expected to be higher capacity than upstream data traffic.”); 12:30—
35 (“an asymmetric network . . . having a high downstream data rate of
n bits per second and a lower upstream data rate of m bits per second.”). But
we do not discern from the Examiner’s findings that Moura also discloses
the reverse, i.e. the capability of Moura’s link to have higher rate of data
flowing in the upstream direction than in the downstream direction. Thus,
given the broadest reasonable interpretation, we agree with the Appellant
that Moura does not teach a “self-configurable asymmetric link,” as recited
in claim 1.
Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of
independent claim 1, nor of independent claims 7, 10, and 13, which contain
limitations of commensurate scope and which were rejected on substantially
the same basis. See Final Act. 14, 18, 21—22. We also do not sustain the
Examiner’s rejection of claims 2—6, 8, 9, 11, 12, and 14—16, which depend
from one of the aforementioned independent claims. In reaching our
decision, we note that the Examiner, in making the various grounds of
rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a), does not find that any of the secondary
references cures the deficiency of Moura.
DECISION
The Examiner’s rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 is
summarily sustained.
8
Appeal 2017-001645
Application 14/154,908
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1 and 10 on grounds of double
patenting is summarily sustained.
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1—6 and 10—12 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 112(b) is not sustained.
The Examiner’s rejections of claims 1—16 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
are reversed.
We, therefore, affirm the Examiner’s decision to rejection claims 1
and 10, and reverse the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 2—9 and 11—16.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.50(f).
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
9