Ex Parte Lida et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Nov 15, 2018

15170019 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 15, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
15/170,019 06/01/2016
16759 7590 11/19/2018
Active Knowledge Ltd.
P.O. Box294
Kiryat Tivon, 36011
ISRAEL
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
EyranLida
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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
Va_EMI4 2753
EXAMINER
YU,LIHONG
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2631
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
11/19/2018 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):
taltiber@gmail.com
ari.frank@gmail.com
giltib@gmail.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte BYRAN LIDA, A VIV SALAMON, GABY GUR COHEN,
and
ISRAEL GREISS
Appeal2018-001236
Application 15/170,019
Technology Center 2600
Before CARLA M. KRIVAK, HUNG H. BUI, and JON M. JURGOV AN,
Administrative Patent Judges.
KRIVAK, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants 1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of
claims 1-8, which are all the claims pending in the application. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.
1 Appellants identify the real party in interest as Valens Semiconductor Ltd.
Appeal2018-001236
Application 15/170,019
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants' invention is directed to a system and method "for
recovering rapidly from a mode-conversion of a common mode
interference" using a transceiver "configured to utilize ... slicing errors to
adapt the [transceiver's] FA-MCC [(fast-adaptive mode-conversion
canceller)] to a level that reduces the packet loss rate to below 1 %" within
less than 1 millisecond from an occurrence of a differential interference
causing packet loss rate above 10% (Abstract).
Claims 1 and 6 are independent. Independent claim 1, reproduced
below, is exemplary of the subject matter on appeal.
1. A transceiver configured to recover rapidly from a
mode-conversion of a common mode interference, comprising:
a slicer configured to generate slicing decisions and
slicing errors based on a differential signal, transmitted at a rate
above 500 Mbps, which is received from a second transceiver;
a common mode sensor analog front end (CMS-APE)
configured to sense a common mode component of the
differential signal;
the CMS-APE is coupled to a fast-adaptive mode-
conversion canceller (FA-MCC) configured to generate a
compensation signal that compensates for differential
interferences that are correlated with the common mode
component; and
within less than 1 millisecond from an occurrence of a
differential interference that causes packet loss rate above 10%
as a result of the mode-conversion, the transceiver is configured
to utilize the slicing errors to adapt the FA-MCC to a level that
reduces the packet loss rate to below 1 %.
REJECTIONS and REFERENCES
The Examiner rejected claims 1, 2, and 6 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 based
upon the teachings ofKota (US 2012/0002711 Al; published Jan. 5, 2012),
2
Appeal2018-001236
Application 15/170,019
Chu (US 2013/0155953 Al; published June 20, 2013), Ogata (US
2012/0173668 Al; published July 5, 2012), Lo (US 6,097,767; issued Aug.
1, 2000), and Kruger (US 2011/0282642 Al; published Nov. 17, 2011).
The Examiner rejected claims 3 and 7 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 based
upon the teachings of Kota, Chu, Ogata, Lo, Kruger, and Seto (US
5,623,515; issued Apr. 22, 1997).
The Examiner rejected claim 4 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 based upon the
teachings of Kota, Chu, Ogata, Lo, Kruger, and Currivan (US 2007 /0061642
Al; published Mar. 15, 2007).
The Examiner rejected claims 5 and 8 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 based
upon the teachings of Kota, Chu, Ogata, Lo, Kruger, and Cavelos (US
4,204,211; issued May 20, 1980).
ANALYSIS
With respect to claim 1, the Examiner finds the combination of Kota,
Ogata, Lo, and Kruger teaches a "transceiver configured to recover rapidly
from a mode-conversion of a common mode interference," in which
within less than 1 millisecond from an occurrence of a
differential interference that causes packet loss rate above 10%
as a result of the mode-conversion, the transceiver is configured
to utilize the slicing errors to adapt the FA-MCC to a level that
reduces the packet loss rate to below 1 %,
as claimed (Final Act. 4--7; Ans. 4--7). Specifically, the Examiner finds
Figure 2A of Kota's communication device teaches a transceiver configured
to utilize slicing errors to adapt an FA-MCC to a level that reduces
electromagnetic interference (Final Act. 4--5 (citing Kota ,r,r 15, 32, 37, 72,
Fig. 2A)). The Examiner also finds "Ogata teaches that reducing differential
3
Appeal2018-001236
Application 15/170,019
interference reduces packet loss," and "Kruger teaches that packet loss of
10% is high, and a packet loss of 1 % is considered normal" (Ans. 5 ( citing
Ogata ,r 3; Kruger ,r 16)). The Examiner further finds "Lo teaches that a
filter setting can be controlled within one millisecond" (Ans. 4--5 (citing Lo
col. 7, 11. 29-40)). The Examiner concludes "it would be obvious to one
ordinary skill[ed] in the art to include Lo's fil[t]er controlling in Kota's
invention," to recover within less than 1 millisecond from an occurrence of
a differential interference as recited in claim 1 (Ans. 5-6). The Examiner
further concludes "the combined teaching of Kota, Ogata and Kruger reads
on the Applicant's claimed limitation of reducing packet loss from 10% to
1 %" (Ans. 5). We do not agree.
We agree with Appellants that Lo, Kota, Ogata, and Kruger, alone or
in combination, fail to teach or suggest "within less than 1 millisecond from
an occurrence of a differential interference that causes packet loss rate above
10% as a result of the mode-conversion," a "transceiver is configured to
utilize the slicing errors to adapt the FA-MCC to a level that reduces the
packet loss rate to below 1 %," as recited in claim 1 (App. Br. 7-9, 11-12).
As Appellants explain, "none of the references discloses reducing the packet
loss rate to below 1 % within less than lms" (App. Br. 11 ). Rather, "Lo's
one millisecond refers to the 'procedure for determining the optimum
equalizer setting' that must come after 'exiting the blind wait state 7 4' that
takes at least 160ms" (App. Br. 9-11 (citing Lo col. 6, 11. 5-20, col. 7, 11. 29-
40, Fig. 5)). Further, Lo is not concerned with reducing packet loss rate for
rapid recovery from a mode-conversion of a common mode interference as
claimed. Rather, Lo is concerned with "prevent[ing] the equalizer controller
36 from calibrating on a noisy signal when a cable is first plugged in[]," and
4
Appeal2018-001236
Application 15/170,019
determining an optimum equalizer setting for the cable's length (see Lo col.
5, 11. 53---64, col. 6, 11. 18-20).
Kota, Ogata, and Kruger do not make up for the above-noted
deficiencies of Lo. Kota's adaptive filters 216 (the Examiner's asserted FA-
MCC) do not reduce packet loss rate to below 1 % within less than lms from
an occurrence of a differential interference, as claimed. That is, Kota's
adaptive filters reduce interference after "the tone generator 218 has [had] g_
chance to converge and start generating estimate signals ... that reduce the
interference components" (App. Br. 7-8 (citing Kota ,r 58)). Ogata's
reference to packet loss from electromagnetic interference, and Kruger's
disclosure of packet losses of 10% and below 1 % do not teach or suggest
reducing packet loss rate within less than 1 millisecond from above 10% to
below 1 %, as recited in claim 1 (App. Br. 8, 12).
The Examiner also has not shown the additional teachings of Chu,
Seto, Currivan, and Cavelos make up for the above-noted deficiencies of
Kota, Kruger, Lo, and Ogata. Thus, for the reasons set forth above, we do
not sustain the Examiner's rejection of independent claim 1 independent
claim 6, argued for substantially the same reasons as claim 1, and claims 2-
5, 7, and 8 dependent therefrom (App. Br. 9).
DECISION
The Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-8 is reversed.
REVERSED
5