Ex Parte Zerbe et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jan 26, 2017

13393314 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 26, 2017)

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.
13/393,314 02/29/2012 Jared L. Zerbe RBS2.P153US 6961
44429 7590 01/30/2017
Peninsula Patent Omim fRamhnsiJ
EXAMINER
203 Woodrow Ave.
Santa Cruz, CA 95060
GUARINO, RAHEL
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2634
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
01/30/2017 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):
lkreisman@peninsulaiplaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte JARED L. ZERBE, BRIAN S. LEIBOWITZ, and QI LIN
Appeal 2016-005535
Application 13/393,3141
Technology Center 2600
Before JOHN A. JEFFERY, SCOTT B. HOWARD, and ALEX S. YAP,
Administrative Patent Judges.
HOWARD, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Final Rejection
of claims 1—6, 8, 17, 18, 21—23, and 26—28. The Examiner objected to
claims 7, 9-16, 19, and 20 as being dependent upon a rejected base claim,
but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the
limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. Final Act. 16. The
Examiner also indicated that claims 24 and 25 are allowed. Final Act. 15.
We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
1 Appellants identify Rambus, Inc. as the real party in interest. App. Br. 3.
Appeal 2016-005535
Application 13/393,314
THE INVENTION
The disclosed and claimed invention is directed “to communication
between a transmit circuit and a receive circuit using a receiver that has a
time-varying threshold voltage.” Spec. 11.
Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject
matter:
1. An apparatus, comprising:
an input node to receive from a serial link a serial stream
of data bits, the data bits having logical values, wherein a given
logical value is within a corresponding bit-duration;
a threshold generator circuit to generate a time-varying
threshold voltage during the bit-duration; and
a sheer, coupled to the input node and the threshold
generator circuit, to resolve the logical values from the serial
stream of data bits based at least on the time-varying threshold
voltage.
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner as evidence in rejecting the
claims on appeal is:
Neyer US
Stojanovic US
Fagg US
Loinaz US
Diggins US
4,509,180 Apr. 2, 1985
2004/0203559 A1 Oct. 14, 2004
7,834,482 B2 Nov. 16,2010
8,000,412 B1 Aug. 16,2011
8,964,837 B2 Feb. 24,2015
REJECTIONS
Claims 1, 2, 4—6, 8, 22, 23, and 26—28 stand rejected under pre-AIA
35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Neyer. Final Act. 10-13.
Claim 17 stands rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Neyer in view of Loinaz. Final Act. 13—14.
2
Appeal 2016-005535
Application 13/393,314
Claim 18 stands rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Neyer in view of Stojanovic. Final Act. 14.
Claims 3 and 21 stand rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Neyer in view of Fagg. Final Act. 15.
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejection in light of Appellants’
arguments that the Examiner erred. In reaching this decision, we have
considered all evidence presented and all arguments made by Appellants.
We are not persuaded by Appellants’ arguments regarding the rejected
claims.
Appellants argue the Examiner erred in finding Neyer discloses “an
input node to receive from a serial link a serial stream of data bits,” as
recited in claim 1. App Br. 10; Reply Br. 4—5. Specifically, Appellants state
that Neyer’s input node 5 “receives a carrier wave signal with modulated
data.” App. Br. 10. Based on that signal, Appellants assert “Neyer does not
describe or suggest an input node that receives from a serial link a serial
stream of data bits.” Id. Appellants also argue the Examiner erred in relying
on the doctrine of inherency to find any of the parts of the input mode
limitation. Reply Br. 4.
The Examiner finds Neyer discloses “an input node (input; 5) to
receive from a serial link (col. 10 lines 57-60) a serial stream of data bits
(thus, serial stream of data bits; abstract; title; col. 1 lines 6-17; col. 1 lines
34-51).” Final Act. 10. The Examiner further finds “Neyer discloses the
electronics circuits are operate serially (col. 10 lines 57-60). Thus, Neyer
provides serial link for receiving sequence of binary bits (thus, serial stream
3
Appeal 2016-005535
Application 13/393,314
of data bits).” Final Act. 3 (citing Neyer [57], [54], 1:6—17, 1:34—51, 4:46—
55, 11:1—50); see also Ans. 15 (finding that “receiving a frequency
modulated serial stream of data bits reads on the limitation of receiving a
serial stream of data bits, as the data bits have been encoded into the high
frequency carrier wave . . .”); Ans. 14—16 (citing Neyer Figs. 1, 2, 1:34-42,
2:47-57, 4:45-63, 5:40-45, 7:30-35, 8:26-45).
It is well settled that mere attorney arguments and conclusory
statements, which are unsupported by factual evidence, are entitled to little
probative value. In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1470 (Fed. Cir. 1997); see
also In re Pearson, 494 F.2d 1399, 1405 (CCPA 1974) (attorney argument is
not evidence). Appellants do not provide any evidence—such as a
declaration from an expert in the relevant art or citation to an engineering
textbook or other peer-reviewed technical documents—to support that
attorney argument. See App. Br. 10. Accordingly, we are not persuaded of
Examiner error because Appellants do not provide persuasive argument or
evidence to support the assertion that Neyer fails to disclose the input node
recited in claim 1.
Moreover, although the Examiner made detailed factual findings
citing various portions of Neyer, Appellants have not identified any errors in
those findings. “If an appellant fails to present arguments on a particular
issue — or, more broadly, on a particular rejection — the Board will not, as
a general matter, unilaterally review those uncontested aspects of the
rejection.” Ex parte Frye, 94 USPQ2d 1072, 1075 (BPAI 2010)
(precedential).
We are similarly not persuaded by Appellants’ argument that the
Examiner erred in relying on the doctrine of inherency. To find a reference
4
Appeal 2016-005535
Application 13/393,314
anticipates a claim, “the reference need not satisfy an ipsissimis verbis test.”
In re Gleave, 560 F.3d 1331, 1334 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (internal quotation marks
omitted). “[I]t is proper to take into account not only specific teachings of
the reference but also the inferences which one skilled in the art would
reasonably be expected to draw therefrom.” In re Preda, 401 F.2d 825, 826
(CCPA 1968); In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1480 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (holding
that prior art references must be “considered together with the knowledge of
one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art”). We have reviewed the
Examiner’s finding and determine that the Examiner did not rely on the
doctrine of inherency and, instead, merely took into account the inferences a
person of ordinary skill in the art would have drawn from Neyer.
Finally, Appellants argue for the first time in the Reply Brief that the
Examiner erred in finding Neyer discloses “the data bits having logical
values, wherein a given logical value is within a corresponding bit-
duration,” as recited in claim 1. Reply Br. 4—5. Because Appellants did not
raise that argument in the opening brief and good cause has not been shown
why it should be considered, we will not consider that argument. 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.41(b)(2).
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1, along
with the rejection of claims 2, 4—6, 8, 22, 23, and 26—28. See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(iv).
With respect to dependent claims 3, 17, 18, and 21 Appellants merely
contend that because the additional references used in the rejections of these
claims (Loinaz, Stojanovic, and Fagg) do not cure the shortcomings of
Neyer applied against claim 1, the Examiner failed to make a prima facie
case of obviousness for these claims. App. Br. 10—11. Because we
5
Appeal 2016-005535
Application 13/393,314
determine that the rejection of claim 1 is not erroneous for the reasons
discussed above, we sustain the rejections of these claims.
DECISION
For the above reasons, we affirm the Examiner’s decisions rejecting
claims 1—6, 8, 17, 18, 21—23, and 26—28.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l)(iv). See 37
C.F.R. §41.50(f).
AFFIRMED
6