Ex Parte Arimilli et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardMay 20, 2014

12024234 (P.T.A.B. May. 20, 2014)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________________ Ex parte LAKSHMINARAYANA B. ARIMILLI, RAVI K. ARIMILLI, GUY L. GUTHRIE, and WILLIAM J. STARKE ____________________ Appeal 2011-013284 Application 12/024,234 Technology Center 2100 ____________________ Before JEFFREY S. SMITH, JOHNNY A. KUMAR, and DANIEL N. FISHMAN, Administrative Patent Judges. KUMAR, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2011-013284 Application 12/024,234 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Introduction Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a final rejection of claims 1-15. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellants and the Examiner, we refer to the Appeal Brief (“App. Br.”) filed February 18, 2011, Reply Brief (“Reply Br.”) filed June 23, 2011, and the Answer (“Ans.”) mailed May 3, 2011, for the respective details. We have considered in this decision only those arguments Appellants actually raised in the Briefs. Any other arguments which Appellants could have made but chose not to make in the Briefs are deemed to be waived. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii). Exemplary Claim An understanding of the invention can be derived from a reading of exemplary claim 1, which is reproduced below [bracketed matter and some paragraphing added]: 1. A method for supporting memory locks within a multiprocessor system, said method comprising: [1] in response to a request for accessing a data block being denied when a lock control section of said data block has been set by a memory controller, [2] wherein said lock control section is represented by a bit within said data block, [3] starting a timer countdown within a processing unit within said multiprocessor system; and [4] relinquishing said access request by said processing unit once said timer countdown has reached a timeout. Appeal 2011-013284 Application 12/024,234 3 Rejection on Appeal The Examiner rejected claims 1-15 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Arimilli (US 2004/0073909 A1, Apr. 15, 2004), O’Connor (US 2007/0204121 A1, Aug. 30, 2007), Kakivaya (US 6,546,443 B1, Apr. 8, 2003), and Peters (US 5,179,669, Jan. 12, 1993). Ans. 4-7. Appellants’ Contentions 1. Appellants contend the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1 because “Arimilli’s promotion bit is different from the claimed lock control section of a data block.” App. Br. 4-5. 2. Appellants contend the “claimed invention is not about requesting a lock because the lock control section of a data block has already been set.” App. Br. 5-6. 3. Appellants also contend “Peter does not disclose the claimed relinquishing step.” App. Br. 6-7. 4. Appellants contend that “maybe Kakivaya is relevant to the present application but still not relevant to Arimilli and O’Connor.” Reply. Br. 3. ISSUE AND ANALYSIS1 Based on Appellants’ arguments in the Briefs (App. Br. 4-7; Reply Br. 2-4), the principal and dispositive issue of whether the Examiner erred in rejecting exemplary claim 1 turns on whether the combination of Arimilli, 1 According to Appellants, claim 6 and 11 recite features similar to claim 1 (App. Br. 4). Therefore, we treat claim 1 as representative for purposes of this appeal. Separate patentability is not argued for claims 2-5, 7-10, and 12-15. Except for our ultimate decision, these claims are not discussed further herein. Appeal 2011-013284 Application 12/024,234 4 O’Connor, Kakivaya, and Peters teaches or suggests limitations [1] to [4] of claim 1. We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellants’ arguments that the Examiner has erred. We disagree with Appellants’ conclusions. We adopt as our own (1) the findings and reasons set forth by the Examiner in the action from which this appeal is taken and (2) the reasons set forth by the Examiner in the Examiner’s Answer in response to Appellants’ Appeal Brief. We concur with the conclusions reached by the Examiner. We highlight and address specific findings and arguments for emphasis as follows. In rejecting independent claim 1 over the combination of Arimilli, O’Connor, Kakivaya, and Peters the Examiner finds (Ans. 4-14) that Arimilli discloses all the claimed features, except for limitations [2]-[4] of claim 1. The Examiner relies on O’Connor for disclosing or suggesting limitation [2], Kakivaya for disclosing or suggesting limitation [3], and Peters for disclosing or suggesting limitation [4]. Id. As to Appellants’ contention 1, we disagree with Appellants’ arguments. The Examiner relies upon O’Connor, rather than Arimilli for teaching “the lock bit can be stored within the data block or separately at different location” feature. Ans. 7. As to Appellants’ contention 2, we adopt the Examiner’s findings and underlying reasoning (Ans. 8-12), which are incorporated herein by reference. As to Appellants’ contention 3, with regard to the “relinquishing” feature, we agree with the Examiner’s analysis in response to Appellants’ Appeal 2011-013284 Application 12/024,234 5 arguments. Ans. 6, 7, and 12-14. Based on our review of Peters (col. 12, l. 63–col. 13, l. 10) and consistent with the Examiner’s stated position (Ans. 6-7), we interpret the claim language “relinquishing” using the broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with Appellants’ disclosure to include Peters’ “back out” feature, where “a source port circuit is allowed to withdraw its request signal before it is granted.” Ans. 6. As to contention 4, the Examiner finds it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to start the timer after the lock is denied as taught by Kakivaya and withdrawing the request as taught by Peter in the system of Arimilli to prevent the deadlock in the multiprocessor system (Peters: col. 12, line 63 - col. 13, line 10) and also avoid consuming resources (Kakivaya: col. 12, line 22 - col. 13, line 13). Ans. 6-7. We agree with the Examiner. Appellants have not presented any specific reason in their arguments that these references are not related art. Consequently, Appellants have not shown error in the Examiner’s rejections of claims 1-15. CONCLUSION The Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 1-15 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Arimilli, O’Connor, Kakivaya, and Peters. Appeal 2011-013284 Application 12/024,234 6 DECISION The Examiner’s rejections of claims 1-15 are affirmed. 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). AFFIRMED msc