Ex Parte Alferness et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardFeb 7, 201410667029 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 7, 2014) Copy Citation UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte MERWIN H. ALFERNESS, WILLIAM J. GOETZINGER, KENT H. HASELHORST, LONNY LAMBRECHT, and JOSHUA W. RENSCH ___________ Appeal 2011-000749 Application 10/667,029 Technology Center 2100 ____________ Before MAHSHID D. SAADAT, CAROLYN D. THOMAS, and DANIEL N. FISHMAN, Administrative Patent Judges. FISHMAN, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2011-000749 Application 10/667,029 2 This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the final rejection of all pending claims (1-23). We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We reverse. STATEMENT OF THE CASE THE INVENTION Appellants’ invention relates to adjusting allocation of memory bandwidth in a network processor by: (1) determining an amount of memory bandwidth of a network processor used by each of a plurality of data types; and (2) dynamically adjusting the amount of memory bandwidth allocated to at least one of the plurality of data types based on the determination. See generally, Abstract. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative: 1. A method of self-adjusting allocation of memory bandwidth in a network processor system comprising: determining an amount of memory bandwidth of a network processor used by a plurality of data types to transmit data through a plurality of active ports; determining an amount of memory bandwidth of the network processor used by each of the plurality of data types; and dynamically adjusting an amount of memory bandwidth allocated to at least one of the plurality of data types based on the determinations. THE REJECTIONS Claims 1-7, 11-18, 22, and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Olnowich (US 6,098,123). Ans. 3-7. Appeal 2011-000749 Application 10/667,029 3 Claims 8-10 and 19-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Olnowich. Ans. 7-8. ISSUE Rather than repeat the arguments here, we refer to Appellants’ Briefs (“App. Br.” filed June 15, 2009 and “Reply Br.” filed September 21, 2010) and the Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.” mailed July 21, 2010) for the respective positions of Appellants and the Examiner. Appellants’ arguments present us with the following dispositive issue: Has the Examiner erred by finding that Olnowich teaches, “determining an amount of memory bandwidth of a network processor used by a plurality of data types to transmit data through a plurality of active ports” as recited in claim 1? ANTICIPATION REJECTION ANALYSIS In rejecting claim 1, the Examiner’s interprets a plurality of data types as reading on Olnowich’s disclosure of different ports exchanging data with different connected devices and transmitting at differing speeds over different ports. Ans. 3-4. Appellants argue, “the present application notes by way of inclusion that ‘[t]he data may be of one or more data types, such as ATM, Fast Ethernet, and/or Gigabit Ethernet.’” App. Br. 8. Appellants further contend: However, neither the function of a port (send/receive), the destination of its data (processor/network), nor the slowing of the transmission speed of data have been shown by the Office to equate to “a plurality of data types.” That is, these passages Appeal 2011-000749 Application 10/667,029 4 have not been shown to disclose anything other than one type of data being transmitted using four (4) different ports. Id. (emphasis omitted). We agree. “[D]uring examination proceedings, claims are given their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification.” In re Hyatt, 211 F.3d 1367, 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (emphasis added). We find the Examiner’s interpretation unreasonably broad in light of the Specification and inconsistent with the Specification. The Specification, though not providing a complete definition, clearly uses the term “data type” in reference to different protocols. See, e.g., Spec. 1:33 through 2:1 (“For an ATM (Asynchronous Transfer Mode) data type”), 2:3 (“Ethernet data types”); 2:20 (“ATM data type”), 4:11-12 (“certain data type (e.g., Fast Ethernet or Gigabit Ethernet, etc.)”), 7:9-10 (“Gigabit Ethernet data type”), 7:17-18 (“one of the plurality of data types refers to Fast Ethernet data”), 7:22-23 (“Fast Ethernet data type”), 7:28-29 (“Fast Ethernet data type”), 8:2-3 (“Fast Ethernet data type”), 8:21-22 (“data of the ATM, Fast Ethernet, and Gigabit Ethernet data types”), 9:7 (“Fast Ethernet data type”), etc. We find the Examiner’s interpretation of “plurality of data types” inconsistent with the Specification. “The construction that stays true to the claim language and most naturally aligns with the patent’s description of the invention will be, in the end, the correct construction.” Renishaw PLC v. Marposs Societa’ per Azioni, 158 F.3d 1243, 1250 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (citation omitted). The Examiner further explains that the Specification also recites that the data transmitted and received may be “one or more” of the exemplary data types (ATM, Fast Ethernet, and Gigabit Ethernet) and thus finds “that ‘one or more data types’ also suggests the possibility of only one data type.” Ans. 9-10 (emphasis omitted). We do not agree. These citations to the Appeal 2011-000749 Application 10/667,029 5 Specification relate to transmissions of “one or more data types” over the plurality of ports but do not suggest a limitation of the recited “plurality of data types” to encompass a single data type. The Examiner provides similar interpretations of recitations of “one or more” in the Specification, further indicating each is within the scope of the claim and could encompass transmission of a single data type over multiple ports. Ans. 10, 12-14. For the same reason, we do not agree. The claims clearly require a plurality of data types rather than a single data type used on each of the plurality of ports. The Examiner also asserts recitations of dependent claims 9, 10, 20, and 21 suggest “the plurality of data types including only a Gigabit Ethernet data type, or the possibility of the plurality of data types including only a Fast Ethernet data type (emphasis on ‘or’ suggested by ‘at least one of’) - hence a plurality of data types being of the same type.” Ans. 10-11 (underlining omitted). We do not agree. The recitations of these dependent claims merely require that the plurality of data types include at least one of a selection of possible data types. As above, these recitations do not narrow the scope of the recited “plurality of data types” to encompass only one data type. The Examiner further states: Appellants’ disclosure, therefore, does not preclude data of the same type being transmitted at different rates from being considered as data of a plurality of data types - hence does not preclude data being transmitted using different ports and at different rates from being considered as data of a plurality of data types. It also appears that appellants’ disclosure does not even preclude data being transmitted using different ports from being considered data of a plurality of types (as discussed above, appellants' Appeal 2011-000749 Application 10/667,029 6 disclosure suggests a plurality of data types being of the same type). Ans. 11. For the same reasons as above, we do not agree. We find nothing in the Specification supporting an interpretation of “plurality of data types” to encompass a single data type transmitted using different rates/speeds or a common, single data type transmitted over a plurality of ports. In view of the above discussions, we are persuaded that the Examiner erred by finding that Olnowich teaches, “determining an amount of memory bandwidth of a network processor used by a plurality of data types to transmit data through a plurality of active ports” as recited in claim 1. We therefore do not sustain the anticipation rejection of claim 1. Independent claims 12 and 23 include similar recitations and therefore we do not sustain the rejection of claims 12 and 23 and all dependent claims. OBVIOUSNESS REJECTIONS Claims 8-10 and 19-21 depend (indirectly) from claims 1 and 12, respectively, and thus, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejections under § 103. DECISION For the above reasons, the rejections of claims 1-23 under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103 are reversed. REVERSED msc Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation