Ex Parte Monreal

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 16, 2016

13344959 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 16, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
13/344,959 01/06/2012
22494 7590 06/20/2016
DALY, CROWLEY, MOFFORD & DURKEE, LLP
SUITE 301A
354A TURNPIKE STREET
CANTON, MA 02021-2714
Gerardo Monreal
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.
ALLEG-200AUS 2428
EXAMINER
PHAN, DEAN
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2184
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/20/2016 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):
docketing@dc-m.com
amk@dc-m.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte GERARDO MONREAL
Appeal2014-007284
Application 13/344,959
Technology Center 2100
Before DEBRA K. STEPHENS, JOSEPH P. LENTIVECH, and
JOHN R. KENNY, Administrative Patent Judges.
STEPHENS, Administrative Patent Judge.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a Non-Final Rejection
of claims 1-5, 10-13, 19, 20, 25-29, and 35--40. 1 We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
1 Claims 6-9, 14--18, 21-24, and 30-34 are indicated as being allowable if
rewritten to include all limitations of the base claim and any intervening
claims (Non-Final Act. 18), and thus, are not before us.
Appeal2014-007284
Application 13/344,959
STATEMENT OF THE INVENTION
According to Appellant, the claims are directed to a determining
addresses of electrical components arranged in a daisy chain (Abstract).
Claim 1, reproduced below, is representative of the claimed subject matter:
1. A system, comprising:
electrical components arranged in a daisy chain and comprising:
a first electrical component disposed at a first end of the daisy
chain; and
a second electrical component disposed at an opposite end of the
daisy chain than the first end, each of the first and second
electrical components comprising:
an input port;
an output port; and
a common port,
\'I/herein the first electrical component is directly coupled to a
master component by no more than two connections comprising
a first connection and a second connection,
wherein the input port of the first electrical component is directly
coupled to one of a supply voltage port of the master component
or a ground port of the master component by the first connection
and the common ports of the first and second electrical
components are coupled to the other one of the supply voltage of
the master component or the ground port of the master
component by the second connection,
wherein each electrical component is configured to determine its
own address, and
wherein an address of the second electrical component is
determined by the second electrical component before addresses
2
Appeal2014-007284
Application 13/344,959
of the other of the electrical components are determined and the
addresses of the electrical components determine a position of an
electrical component with respect to the other of the electrical
components in the daisy chain.
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Mi to
Ropke
Steger
Downie
us 5,361,260
US 6,838,999 Bl
US 2005/0132109 Al
UK2 353 448A
REJECTIONS
Nov. 1, 1994
Jan.4,2005
June 16, 2005
Feb.21,2001
Claims 1, 3, 12, 28, 35, and 37 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103(a)
as being unpatentable over Steger and Downie (Non-Final Act. 3---6).
Claims 2; 4; 5; 10; 11; 13; 19; 20; 25-27; 29; 36; and 38--40 stand
rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as being unpatentable over Steger,
Downie, and Mito (Non-Final Act. 6-10).
Claims 1, 3, 12, 28, 35, and 37 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103(a)
as being unpatentable over Ropke and Steger (Non-Final Act. 10-13).
Claims 2, 4, 5, 10, 11, 13, 19, 20, 25-27, 29, 36, and 38--40 stand
rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as being unpatentable over Ropke, Steger,
and Mito (Non-Final Act. 13-16).
3
Appeal2014-007284
Application 13/344,959
ISSUE 1
35 U.S.C. § 103(a): Claims 1, 3, 12, 28, 35, and 37
Appellant asserts the invention is not obvious over Steger and Downie
(App. Br. 5-6). The issues presented by the arguments are:
Issue 1 (a): Has the Examiner erred in finding the combination of
Steger and Downie teaches or suggests "wherein the first electrical
component is directly coupled to a master component by no more than two
connections comprising a first connection and a second connection," as
recited in claim 1?
Issue 1 (b): Has the Examiner improperly combined the teachings and
suggestions of Steger and Downie?
ANALYSIS
Appellant contends Downie does not teach a first electrical
component is directly coupled to a master component by no more than two
connections (App. Br. 6). According to Appellant, Downie's description of
"'(i)n each case [address and data can be combined with the power line to
achieve a 2-wire bus]' refers to transmitting data along bus wires 3 in one
case and receiving data along bus wires 3 in a second case," and thus,
teaches four wires connecting node 2 to master unit 4, in contrast to the
recited "no more than two connections" (App. Br. 6).
We are not persuaded by Appellant's arguments. As set forth by the
Examiner, Downie teaches the address and data bus can be combined with a
power line to achieve a 2-wire bus (Ans. 3; Downie, 6). We are not
persuaded Downie's teaching of an embodiment with a two-wire bus
requires four wires in total, connecting node 2 to master unit 4. Downie
clarifies "[i]n two-wire systems the power connection is also used as the
4
Appeal2014-007284
Application 13/344,959
data and address bus" (Downie, 1). Thus, we are not persuaded Downie
fails to teach "the first electrical component is directly coupled to a master
component by no more than two connections comprising a first connection
and a second connection," as recited in claim 1.
Appellant additionally argues the Examiner used hindsight
reconstruction in combining the teachings of Steger and Downie (App. Br.
7-9). According to Appellant, an ordinarily skilled artisan would not have
combined the teachings of Downie with those of Steger because Downie
does not include self-addressing nodes, but instead, includes pre-
programmed or hard-wired nodes (id. at 8). Appellant contends pre-
programmed or hard-wired nodes, as taught by Downie, would not be
combined with Steger because the claimed invention is "for slave
components to determine their own address having only two connections
connecting an electrical component to a master component" (id. at 8-9).
We are not persuaded by Appellant's arguments. The Examiner is not
relying on the nodes of Downie, but instead, relies on the combination for
the teaching of a first electrical component being directly coupled to a
master component by no more than two connections (Non-Final Act. 5).
Appellant additionally argues if in Steger, the address bus 14 were
combined with the VDD line, as taught by Downie, numerous components
in Steger would be eliminated making the control unit 12 inoperable (App.
Br. 7). These eliminated elements, Appellant asserts, are necessary to make
Steger's circuit function and thus, the combination would not function (id. at
7-8).
We are not persuaded. Specifically, the Examiner has set forth why
an ordinarily skilled artisan would have found it obvious to combine the
5
Appeal2014-007284
Application 13/344,959
teachings and suggestions of Steger and Downie (Non-Final Act. 5).
Further, the Examiner has explained how the teaching of Downie could be
incorporated into the system of Steger without rendering it inoperable (id.;
Ans. 4--5). Appellant has not persuaded us combining the teachings of
Steger and Downie to achieve an operable system, would have been
uniquely challenging or difficult for one of ordinary skill in the art or
represented an unobvious step over the prior art. Indeed, as set forth by the
Examiner, the technology of combining address and data with power would
have been well-known to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the
invention. (Ans. 3.)
Accordingly, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in finding the
combination of Steger and Downie teaches or suggests the limitations as
recited in claim 1. We are further not persuaded the Examiner improperly
combined the teachings and suggestions of Steger and Downie. Independent
claims 12, 28, and 35, commensurately recited, and dependent claims 3 and
37 are not separately argued (App. Br. 9). Therefore, we sustain the
rejection of claims 1, 3, 12, 28, 35, and 37 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) for
obviousness over Steger and Downie.
ISSUE 2
35U.S.C.§103(a): Claims 2, 4, 5, 10, 11, 13, 19, 20, 25-27, 29, 36, and
38-40
Appellant does not separately argue the invention as recited in claims
2, 4, 5, 10, 11, 13, 19, 20, 25-27, 29, 36, and 38--40, instead, relying on the
arguments set forth for claim 1 (App. Br. 9). Therefore, we sustain the
6
Appeal2014-007284
Application 13/344,959
rejection of claims 2, 4, 5, 10, 11, 13, 19, 20, 25-27, 29, 36, and 38--40
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) for obviousness over Steger, Downie, and Mito.
ISSUE 3
35 U.S.C. § 103(a): Claims 1, 3, 12, 28, 35, and 37
The Examiner rejected claims 1, 3, 12, 28, 35, and 37 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Ropke and Steger
(Non-Final Act. 10-11 ). Appellant presents no arguments as to why the
Examiner's rejection is in error. Accordingly, we summarily sustain the
rejection of claims 1, 3, 12, 28, 35, and 37 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) for
obviousness over Ropke and Steger.
35U.S.C.§103(a): Claims 2, 4, 5, 10, 11, 13, 19, 20, 25-27, 29, 36, and
38-40
The Examiner rejects claims 2, 4, 5, 10, 11, 13, 19, 20, 25-27, 29, 36,
and 38--40 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) for obviousness over Ropke, Steger,
and Mito (Non-Final Act. 13-16). Appellant presents no arguments as to
why the Examiner's rejection is in error. Accordingly, we summarily
sustain the rejection of claims 2, 4, 5, 10, 11, 13, 19, 20, 25-27, 29, 36, and
38--40 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) for obviousness over Ropke, Steger, and
Mito.
DECISION
The Examiner's rejection of claims 1, 3, 12, 28, 35, and 37 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Steger and Downie is affirmed.
7
Appeal2014-007284
Application 13/344,959
The Examiner's rejection of claims 2, 4, 5, 10, 11, 13, 19, 20, 25-27,
29, 36, and 38--40 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over
Steger, Downie, and Mito is affirmed.
The Examiner's rejection of claims 1, 3, 12, 28, 35, and 37 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Ropke and Steger is affirmed.
The Examiner's rejection of claims 2, 4, 5, 10, 11, 13, 19, 20, 25-27,
29, 36, and 38--40 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over
Ropke, Steger, and Mito is affirmed.
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.
§ 1.136(a)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED
8