Sony Corporation

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jun 7, 2021

2020001261 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 7, 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.
15/523,768 05/02/2017 Takashi Yokokawa 880001-6308-US01 4379
165569 7590 06/07/2021
MICHAEL BEST & FRIEDRICH LLP (SONY)
790 N WATER ST
SUITE 2500
MILWAUKEE, WI 53202
EXAMINER
YU, LIHONG
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2631
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/07/2021 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):
DCipdocket@michaelbest.com
ajheins@michaelbest.com
nbenjamin@michaelbest.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte TAKASHI YOKOKAWA and HIRONOBU KONISHI

Appeal 2020-001261
Application 15/523,768
Technology Center 2600
____________

Before ST. JOHN COURTENAY III, JASON J. CHUNG,
and NORMAN H. BEAMER, Administrative Patent Judges.

BEAMER, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s final
rejection of claims 1–14.1 Claims 15–20 are withdrawn. We have
jurisdiction over the pending rejected claims under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.

1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in
37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies Sony Corporation as the real party in
interest. (Appeal Br. 3.)
Appeal 2020-001261
Application 15/523,768

2

THE INVENTION
Appellant’s disclosed and claimed invention is directed to
transmission device that generates, on the basis of a control signal, a
transmission symbol signal that indicates a sequence of transmission
symbols, and to allow output signals to exchange signal patterns with one
another. (Spec., Abstr.)
Independent claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the subject
matter on appeal:
1. A transmission device, comprising:
a generator unit that generates, on a basis of a mode
control signal, a transmission symbol signal that indicates a
sequence of transmission symbols;
an output control unit that generates an output control
signal on a basis of the transmission symbol signal; and
a driver unit that generates, on a basis of the output
control signal, a first output signal for output to a first input
terminal of a reception device via a first output terminal, a
second output signal for output to a second input terminal of the
reception device via a second output terminal, and a third
output signal for output to a third input terminal of the reception
device via a third output terminal,
the generator unit generating the transmission symbol
signal on the basis of the mode control signal, to allow the first
output signal, the second output signal, and the third output
signal to exchange signal patterns with one another,
wherein the mode control signal indicates an operation
mode on a basis of an arrangement order of the first, second,
and third input terminals of the reception device.
Appeal 2020-001261
Application 15/523,768

3

REJECTIONS
The Examiner rejected claims 1–9 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Wiley et al. (US 2014/0112401 Al, pub. Apr. 24, 2014).
(Final Act. 4–9.)
The Examiner rejected claims 10–14 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over the combination of Wiley and Davies et al. (US
2004/0105344 Al, pub. June 3, 2004). (Final Act. 9–13.)
ISSUE ON APPEAL
Appellant’s arguments present the following dispositive issue:2
Whether the Examiner erred in finding that Wiley taught or suggested
the independent claim 1 limitation, “wherein the mode control signal
indicates an operation mode on a basis of an arrangement order of the first,
second, and third input terminals of the reception device.” (Appeal Br. 8–
13.)
ANALYSIS
In rejecting claim 1, the Examiner finds that, although Wiley does not
disclose explicitly the claim 1 requirement at issue, Wiley “teaches that the
first, second, and third terminals of the reception device are connected to the
corresponding first, second and third output terminals of the transmitting
device,” and therefore the claim requirement would have been obvious
because “the arrangement order of the first, second, and third output

2 Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellant and the legal conclusions
and findings of the Examiner, we refer to the Appeal Brief, filed Sept. 9,
2019 (“Appeal. Br.”); the Reply Brief, filed Dec. 4, 2019 (“Reply Br.”); the
Final Office Action, mailed Dec. 10, 2018 (“Final Act.”); and the
Examiner’s Answer, mailed Oct. 4, 2019 (“Ans.”) for the respective details.
Appeal 2020-001261
Application 15/523,768

4

terminals of the transmitting device equals the arrangement order of the first,
second, and third input terminals of the reception device.” (Final Act. 4–5,
citing Wiley, Fig. 7, ¶ 21; see also Ans. 4–5.)
Appellant argues the Examiner’s findings about “corresponding”
terminals and “arrangement order” of terminals is erroneous given that
Wiley does not evidence any awareness of the fact that the arrangement of
the output terminals of a transmission device does not necessarily match that
of the reception device. (Appeal Br. 9–10.) As the subject application
explains:
[S]ince the transmission device 10 and the reception device 50
may be supplied by various vendors, there may be a case in
which the order of the output terminals P0 to P2 and the order
of the input terminals PA to PC do not correspond to each other
in this order. Moreover, for example, in a case in which the
transmission device 10 is mounted on a front surface of a
printed circuit board while the reception device 50 is mounted
on a rear surface of the printed circuit board, there may be a
case in which the order of the output terminals P0 to P2 and the
order of the input tem1inals PA to PC do not correspond to
each other in this order.
(Spec. ¶ 42.) Appellant further argues that the Examiner does not explain
how Wiley would have taught or suggested the required mode control signal
indicating an operation mode based on the input terminal order. (Appeal
Br. 11–12; Reply Br. 3–4.)
Based upon our review of the evidence, we agree with Appellant. The
Examiner does not cite anything in Wiley which would have taught or
suggested using a mode control signal to indicate an operation mode based
on the arrangement order of the input terminals of a reception device. The
Examiner does cite the fact that Wiley discloses a “mode select switch.”
Appeal 2020-001261
Application 15/523,768

5

(Ans. 5.) However, this switch selects alternatively between two
communication formats (“MIPI D-PHY” or “N-Phase Polarity”). (Wiley,
Fig. 10, ¶¶ 84–90.) The Examiner does not explain how this functionality
could teach or suggest the use of a mode select switch in accord with the
requirements of claim 1.
Therefore, we do not sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejections of
independent claim 1 over Wiley, nor of claims 2–9, which depend from
claim 1.
Regarding the second-stated rejection of claims 10–14, on this record
the Examiner has not shown how the secondary Davies reference overcomes
the aforementioned deficiency of Wiley. Therefore, we also reverse the
Examiner’s second-stated rejection of claims 10–14 over the combination of
Wiley and Davies.
DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/
Basis
Affirmed Reversed
1–9 103 Wiley 1–9
10–14 103 Wiley,
Davies
10–14
Overall
Outcome
1–14

REVERSED