Ex Parte Zerbe et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardJan 26, 201713393314 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 26, 2017) Copy Citation 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 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation