Ex Parte Rivoir

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardOct 31, 2012

10446568 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 31, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte JOCHEN RIVOIR ____________ Appeal 2010-006283 Application 10/446,568 Technology Center 2600 ____________ Before MAHSHID D. SAADAT, DEBRA K. STEPHENS, and MICHAEL J. STRAUSS, Administrative Patent Judges. PER CURIAM. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2010-006283 Application 10/446,568 2 Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Final Rejection of claims 1 and 6-13. Claims 3-5 have been indicated as allowable and claim 2 has been canceled. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. STATEMENT OF THE CASE Introduction Appellant’s invention relates to adjustment of transitions within a bit stream based on a pattern matching algorithm for comparing the received bit stream with the expected bit stream (see Spec. 2:4-15, 25-28). Exemplary Claim Independent claim 1 is exemplary of the claims under appeal and reads as follows: 1. A method for adjusting transitions in a bit stream of a signal to be evaluated by comparison with a predetermined expected bit stream, comprising the steps of: receiving said bit stream by a transition adjustment filter, providing a transition frame signal to said transition adjustment filter, said transition frame signal providing information for eliminating non-deterministic clock latencies within said bit stream of said received signal, and adjusting said bit stream of said received signal according to said transition frame signal resulting in an adjusted bit stream being in alignment to the predetermined expected bit stream. Rejection on Appeal The Examiner rejected claims 1 and 6-13 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being anticipated by Klotchkov (US 2003/0208717 A1). Appeal 2010-006283 Application 10/446,568 3 Appellant’s Contentions With respect to claim 1, Appellant contends that, rather than adjusting transitions in a bit stream according to transition frame signal, Klotchkov adjusts skew between bit streams in response to calibrated register clock signals (App. Br. 9-10). Appellant further asserts that the Examiner’s characterization of the delay Td as a register clock is in error because paragraphs 91-95 of Klotchkov do not teach the claimed “transition frame signal providing information for eliminating non-deterministic clock latencies” because “Td is an ‘actual value of signal delay’ between an edge of a ‘main clock’ and the ‘moment when the register actually latches input data’” (App. Br. 10). Appellant explains that such programmed delay will affect every transition of a clock signal and therefore, the delay Td “is not a frame signal, as there are no bits being ‘framed’” (id). Additionally, Appellant relies on pages 2 and 6 of the instant Specification for defining a transition frame signal as a signal that frames “blocks of bits” (App. Br. 10- 11) and argues that “Klotchkov’s delay value and register clocks adjust the skew of an entire bit stream, and do not eliminate ‘non-deterministic clock latencies within [a] bit stream” (App. Br. 11). Appellant further argues the patentability of claims 6-13 based on the same reasons presented for claim 1, allowing these claims to fall with representative claim 1 (id.). ANALYSIS We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellant’s arguments that the Examiner has erred. We disagree with Appellant’s conclusion. We adopt as our own (1) the findings and reasons set forth by Appeal 2010-006283 Application 10/446,568 4 the Examiner in the action from which this appeal is taken and (2) the rebuttals to arguments expressed by the Examiner in the Examiner’s Answer in response to Appellants’ Appeal Brief (see Ans. 15-16). We specifically agree with the Examiner (Ans. 12-13), that paragraph 96 of Klotchkov describes the ways the non-deterministic latency as the uncertainty in determining the signal delay may be overcome and corrected. Klotchkov uses the signal delay Td to compensate for the time differences between when the register latches input data and the reference clock edge (¶ [0091]). As further explained by the Examiner, the claim recites “a transition frame signal” for providing information related to time locations of non-deterministic latencies, which is met by the register clock of Klotchkov having delay time information for eliminating the non- deterministic latencies by compensating for the time differences (see Ans. 13 (citing Klotchkov, ¶¶ [0091] – [0096]). Contrary to Appellant’s assertion (App. Br. 10-11, Reply Br. 2-3), the claim does not preclude framing a bit segment by a signal, such as Klotchkov’s register clock signal, as the transition frame signal. In fact, similar to Appellant’s frame signal, this register clock signal in Figure 5 provides information regarding the length and the alignment of bit segments and therefore, frames “blocks of bits.” Furthermore, we find the Examiner properly concludes that, by determining the signal delay Td, the received bit stream or the data output is adjusted and aligned to “the predetermined expected bit stream” or the expected data (see Ans. 13-14 (citing Klotchkov, ¶ [0005])). Appeal 2010-006283 Application 10/446,568 5 CONCLUSIONS 1. The Examiner has not erred in rejecting claims 1 and 6-13 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being anticipated by Klotchkov. 2. Claims 1 and 6-13 are not patentable. DECISION The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1 and 6-13 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). AFFIRMED ELD