Ex Parte Qunell et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardSep 27, 2012

11393242 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 27, 2012)

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. 11/393,242 03/30/2006 Miriam E. Qunell P23085 8131 94221 7590 09/27/2012 Buckley, Maschoff & Talwalkar LLC/ Intel Corporation 50 Locust Avenue New Canaan, CT 06840 EXAMINER CHEN, XIAOLIANG ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2835 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 09/27/2012 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 MIRIAM E. QUNELL, ROBERT F. REED, and ERNEST KAEMPFER ____________________ Appeal 2011-008282 Application 11/393,242 Technology Center 2800 ____________________ Before MARC S. HOFF, CARLA M. KRIVAK, and ANDREW J. DILLON, Administrative Patent Judges KRIVAK, Administrative Patent Judge DECISION ON APPEAL Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of claims 3, 5-11, 14, 16, 17, and 22-25. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. Appeal 2011-008282 Application 11/393,242 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants’ claimed invention is concerned with half mesh backplane connection topology. Independent claims 3 and 22, reproduced below, are representative of the subject matter on appeal. 3. A backplane comprising: at least one central slot; a first plurality of slots on a first side of said at least one central slot; a second plurality of slots on a second side of said at least one central slot, said second side opposite said first side; and a plurality of inter-slot connections, said plurality of inter-slot connections including: a first subplurality of connections connecting each slot of said first plurality of slots to said at least one central slot; a second subplurality of connections connecting each slot of said second plurality of slots to said at least one central slot; and a third subplurality of connections connecting each slot of said first plurality of slots to each slot of said second plurality of slots; wherein no slot of said first plurality of slots is connected for communication with any other slot of said first plurality of slots; Appeal 2011-008282 Application 11/393,242 3 wherein no slot of said second plurality of slots is connected for communication with any other slot of said second plurality of slots. 22. A backplane comprising: a first plurality of slots; a second plurality of slots; and a plurality of inter-slot connections connecting each slot of said first plurality of slots to each slot of said second plurality of slots; wherein: no slot of said first plurality of slots is connected for communication with any other slot of said first plurality of slots; and no slot of said second plurality of slots is connected for communication with any other slot of said second plurality of slots. REFERENCES and REJECTIONS The Examiner rejected claims 22, 23, and 25 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being anticipated by Aguinaga (US 7,522,614 B1, Apr. 21, 2009, filed Feb. 28, 2003). The Examiner rejected claims 3, 5-9, 14, and 24 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based upon the teachings of Aguinaga and Iacovino (US Patent Publication No. 2004/0085954 A1, May 6, 2004). The Examiner rejected claims 10, 11, 16, and 17 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based upon the teachings of Aguinaga, Iacovino, and Campini (US 7,083,422 B2, Aug. 1, 2006, filed Apr. 13, 2004). Appeal 2011-008282 Application 11/393,242 4 ANALYSIS Rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 102 Appellants contend the Examiner is incorrect in finding Aguinaga teaches all the limitations of Appellants’ claim 22. Appellants assert Aguinaga “indicates . . . slots 17 and 18 – are connected to each other by the network distribution bus (NDB) 100” (Br. 7). Appellants further contend the language in column 8 of Aguinaga that uses the word “may” is interpreted incorrectly by the Examiner, in that the connection between network interface cards and the NDB of Aguinaga is not “optional” (Br. 7-8). Finally, Appellants contend Aguinaga’s disclosure appears to disclose at least two other connections between slots by way of clock buses (Br. 8). We do not agree with Appellants. We do agree with and adopt the Examiner’s findings as our own. Particularly, we agree Aguinaga’s Figure 4 shows all of the limitations of Appellants’ claim 22 (Ans. 3-4, 13-14). We also agree with the Examiner regarding NDB coupling slots 17 and 18 (Ans. 14-15), and that Figure 11 of Aguinaga shows the slots connected to ground, not “connected for communication” as Appellants assert (Ans. 15). Thus, we conclude the Examiner did not err in finding Aguinaga teaches all the features of Appellants’ claim 22, and thus anticipates claim 22, as well as claims 23 and 25 which depend therefrom. Rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103 Appellants contend modifying Aguinaga in the manner set forth in Iacovino would change the operation of the slots in Aguinaga (Br. 8-9). However, Appellants have not provided how the operation of Aguinaga’s slots would be substantially modified. The Examiner merely relies on Iacovino for placement of the slots (Ans. 6). We conclude the Examiner did Appeal 2011-008282 Application 11/393,242 5 not err in finding claim 3, along with claims 5-11, 14, 16, 17, and 24 which fall therewith (Br. 8).would have been obvious over Aguinaga and Iacovino CONCLUSION The Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 22, 23 and 25 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e). The Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 3, 5-9, 14, 24 and 10, 11, 16 and 17 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). DECISION The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 3, 5-11, 14, 16, 17, and 22-25 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)(1)(iv)(2010). AFFIRMED Vsh/peb