QUALCOMM Incorporated

Patent Trials and Appeals BoardMay 4, 2021

2020000976 (P.T.A.B. May. 4, 2021)

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. 14/850,104 09/10/2015 Richard Dominic Wietfeldt 152575/1173-287 4111 115309 7590 05/04/2021 W&T/Qualcomm 106 Pinedale Springs Way Cary, NC 27511 EXAMINER SUN, SCOTT C ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2181 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 05/04/2021 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): ocpat_uspto@qualcomm.com patents@wt-ip.com us-docketing@qualcomm.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte RICHARD DOMINIC WIETFELDT, MAXIME LECLERCQ, and GEORGE ALAN WILEY Appeal 2020-000976 Application 14/850,104 Technology Center 2100 Before ELENI MANTIS MERCADER, LARRY J. HUME, and SCOTT E. BAIN, Administrative Patent Judges. MANTIS MERCADER, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 17–28. See Final Act. 1. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM. 1 We use the term “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as QUALCOMM Incorporated. Appeal Br. 2. Appeal 2020-000976 Application 14/850,104 2 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER The claims are directed to a unified systems and methods for interchip and intrachip node communication. Claim 17, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 17. An integrated circuit (IC), comprising: a node comprising a transmitter and a receiver; and a gateway comprising: an external interface configured to be coupled to a bus external to the IC and communicate thereover through a first protocol; and an internal interface communicatively coupled to the node and configured to communicate therebetween through the first protocol. REFERENCES The prior art relied upon by the Examiner as evidence is: Name Reference Date Hanes US 2007/0109015 A1 May 17, 2007 Poulsen US 2013/0322462 A1 Dec. 5, 2013 REJECTION Claims 17–28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being obvious over Hanes in view of Poulsen. Final Act. 3. OPINION Except where indicated, we adopt the Examiner’s findings in the Answer and Final Office Action and we add the following primarily for emphasis. We note that if Appellant failed to present arguments on a particular rejection, we decline to review unilaterally those uncontested aspects of the rejection. See Ex parte Frye, 94 USPQ2d 1072, 1075 (BPAI 2010) (precedential); Hyatt v. Dudas, 551 F.3d 1307, 1313–14 (Fed. Appeal 2020-000976 Application 14/850,104 3 Cir. 2008) (the Board may treat arguments Appellant failed to make for a given ground of rejection as waived). (1) Does Hanes disclose a gateway comprising an external interface and an internal interface? Appellant argues that Hanes does not teach an “external interface” within “switching element 20” or equivalent “switching elements 72, 74, 76.” See Appeal Br. 6. We disagree with Appellant’s argument. The claim language does not require that the external interface be within the gateway but rather that the gateway comprises an external interface and an internal interface. See claim 17. We give claims their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification. In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Appellant’s Specification states that “[t]he gateway 46 includes an internal interface that is coupled to the nodes 34(1)-34(N) and an external interface that is coupled to the external bus 38.” Spec. para. 39. The Examiner, consistent with Appellant’s Specification finds, and we agree, that in the absence of any other structural or functional limitations to the term “gateway” as claimed is met by the external interface labeled 91 in Figure 2 and the internal interface of switching element labeled 72 in Figure 2.2 See Ans. 3. Appellant in its Reply Brief further explains that element 60, which is the external interface, and element 64 that is the internal interface, are within gateway 46. See Reply Br. 3–4. Appellant seems to argue that elements 60 and 64 are within the gateway 46 but there is no equivalent box labeled as 2 The Examiner refers to element 90 but we treat this as harmless error as the external interface is element 91 in Figure 2. Appeal 2020-000976 Application 14/850,104 4 “gateway” encircling the external interface labeled 91 and the internal interface, switching element labeled 72, in Hanes’ Figure 2. We note that the claim is silent about the internal and external interface being within the gateway or being part of a single structure. Instead the claim requires that the gateway comprises an external and an internal interface and thus, the external interface 91 and the internal interface 72 of Hanes constitute a gateway. Furthermore, to the extent that Appellant makes a distinction with respect to the Specification Figure 3, we do not read limitations from the Specification into the claim. Although claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 1184 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Thus, we understand the external and internal interfaces to be “within” the gateway to be unclaimed features. See Broadcom Corp. v. Qualcomm Inc., 543 F.3d 683, 689 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (noting that “‘each claim does not necessarily cover every feature disclosed in the specification. When the claim addresses only some of the features disclosed in the specification, it is improper to limit the claim to other, unclaimed features’” (citation omitted)). Moreover, there is no ipsissimis verbis test for determining whether a reference discloses a claim element, i.e., identity of terminology is not required. In re Bond, 910 F.2d 831, 832 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Thus, the gateway being defined as an internal and external interface (see Spec. para. 39) is met by Hanes’ external interface 91 and internal interface 72, and there is no requirement that the prior art identifies them as a gateway because identity of terminology is not required. Appeal 2020-000976 Application 14/850,104 5 (2) Does Hanes teach away from moving the external interface into the switching element? Appellant argues that Hanes teaches away from modifying Hanes to move the “external interface 91, 93, or 95” into the “switching elements 72, 74, or 76.” See Appeal Br. 7. Appellant first cites to Hanes at paragraph 70 “[e]xternal devices may communicate over longer distances at high rates by using serialized clock recovery links, for example, to aid in moving data across boards or equipment backplanes . . . As noted above, internal switching elements allow different connection segment sizes and/or speeds to be used in the same integrated circuit.” Id. Appellant further cites to Hanes at paragraph 72 “external and internal connections may both use packet formats, but the internal connections may handle multiword parallel packets instead of serial packets supported on the external bus, for example.” Id. Appellant argues that changing the external interface to be inside the switching elements would vitiate this ability and render Hanes unsuitable for its purpose. Id. We do not agree with Appellant’s argument. As discussed above, we agree with Examiner’s finding that the subject matter of claim 17 only requires that the gateway comprises at least two structures which are the external interface and internal interface. See Ans. 3 and see also claim 17. The Examiner has not proposed changing the external interface to be inside the switching elements, but rather recognizes that Hanes’ external interface 91 and internal interface 72, both together without any further modification, constitute a gateway. See Ans. 3 and Hanes Figure 2. Furthermore, the Examiner finds that Hanes expressly teaches the external and internal integrated circuits using the same protocol. See Ans. 4 Appeal 2020-000976 Application 14/850,104 6 (citing para. 14). Thus, both the external and internal interface of Hanes use the same protocol. (3) Does Hanes teach a first protocol used by the internal and external interface or whether Hanes in view of Poulsen makes obvious the use of a first protocol by the internal and external interface? Appellant argues, even if it is proper to label the collection of the switching element and the external interface as a gateway, this amalgamated gateway still does not use a first protocol for both the internal interface and the external interface. See Appeal Br. 8. Examiner finds, and we agree, Hanes teaches the external and interface bus use the same protocol. See Ans. 4 (citing Hanes para. 14 “Some embodiments of the invention relate to a physical switched bus architecture in which an external bus and an internal integrated circuit bus use the same protocol. Extending the range of a protocol in this manner can greatly improve the access to and performance of components connected to the bus”). Examiner further finds, and we agree with, that Poulsen teaches “a unified interface for devices that generate numeric data in different formats but can be coupled to the same bus.” Id. (citing Poulsen para. 147). Accordingly, we affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claim 17 and, for the same reasons, the rejections of claims 18–28 not argued separately. CONCLUSION We AFFIRM the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 17–28. DECISION SUMMARY Claim(s) Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 17–28 103 Hanes, Poulsen 17–28 Appeal 2020-000976 Application 14/850,104 7 RESPONSE 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). See 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(f). AFFIRMED