Ex Parte LidaDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardOct 27, 201714154908 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 27, 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. 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 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation