Ex Parte Arimilli et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardAug 19, 2014

12342691 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 19, 2014)

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. 12/342,691 12/23/2008 Ravi K. Arimilli AUS920080038US1 3113 50170 7590 08/20/2014 IBM CORP. (WIP) c/o WALDER INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW, P.C. 17304 PRESTON ROAD SUITE 200 DALLAS, TX 75252 EXAMINER BELANI, KISHIN G ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2443 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 08/20/2014 PAPER 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. PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte RAVI K. ARIMILLI and PIYUSH CHAUDHARY ____________ Appeal 2012-004709 Application 12/342,691 Technology Center 2400 ____________ Before JOSEPH F. RUGGIERO, CARLA M. KRIVAK, and CATHERINE SHIANG, Administrative Patent Judges. SHIANG, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s final rejection of claims 1–5 and 7–20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We reverse. STATEMENT OF THE CASE The Examiner finds Morioka anticipates Appellants’ claimed invention. See Ans. 4. We have reviewed Appellants’ arguments in the Briefs, the Examiner’s rejection, and the Examiner’s response to Appellants’ arguments. We concur with Appellants’ conclusion that the Examiner erred in finding Morioka (US 6,631,447 B1; issued Oct. 7, 2003) discloses “wherein the call is a request to communicate with a second operating Appeal 2012-004709 Application 12/342,691 2 system associated with a second application in the second data processing system and wherein the second operating system allocates a shared buffer in the second data processing system in response to the request without any involvement by the second application,” as recited in independent claim 1. 1 The Examiner cites Morioka’s Figure 15 and columns 20–21 for the disputed claim limitation (Ans. 22–23). 2 However, the Examiner does not adequately explain, and we do not see, how the cited figure and columns disclose the disputed claim limitation. For example, the cited figure and columns do not disclose any application, which is required by the disputed claim limitation. The Examiner further cites Morioka’s Figure 15 and column 20, line 56 through column 21, line 9, and finds: In a distributed data processing system such as the system shown in Fig. 15 of Morioka et al., different application programs execute in a processor 200 within cluster # 0, and may generate requests to access memory in a different remote cluster, such as cluster # 3. Such a request may be for updating the content of a web page residing in the local memory 400 of the remote cluster # 3, that another application program executing in another processor 200 of cluster # 3 may store in a database. This is disclosed in column 20, line 56 through column 21, and line 9 in Morioka et al. reference[.] 1 Appellants raise additional arguments. Because the identified issue is dispositive of the appeal, we do not reach the additional arguments. 2 The Examiner states Morioka’s Figures 1, 2, and 9, column 9, lines 8–23 and 46–52, and column16, lines 16–44 also “show and disclose these details.” See Ans. 23–24. Again, the Examiner does not adequately explain, and we do not see, how such figures and columns disclose the disputed claim limitation. Appeal 2012-004709 Application 12/342,691 3 Ans. 22. Again, contrary to the Examiner’s findings, we do not see such disclosures in the cited Morioka figure and columns. Because the Examiner fails to present sufficient evidence for the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 102, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of independent claim 1 and corresponding dependent claims 2–5 and 7–8. For similar reasons, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of independent claims 9 and 15, and corresponding dependent claims 10–14 and 16–20. DECISION The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1–5 and 7–20 is reversed. REVERSED dw