Ex Parte Assouad

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardApr 28, 2016

12758975 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 28, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR 121758,975 04/13/2010 Simon Assouad 121419 7590 05/02/2016 Oblon/Broadcom Corporation 1940 Duke Street Alexandria, VA 22314 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 ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO. 430804US8 6054 EXAMINER KATSIKIS, KOSTAS J ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2441 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 05/02/2016 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): patentdocket@oblon.com oblonpat@oblon.com ahudgens@oblon.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte SIMON AS SOU AD Appeal2014-005039 Application 12/758,975 Technology Center 2400 Before MAHSHID D. SAADAT, JOHNNY A. KUMAR, and JON M. JURGOV AN, Administrative Patent Judges. SAADAT, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 134(a) from a final rejection of claims 21-23 and 26-41, which are all the pending claims in this application.2 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 6(b). We reverse. 1 According to Appellant, the real party in interest is Broadcom Corp. (Br. 2). 2 Claims 1-20, 24, and 25 have been canceled. Appeal2014-005039 Application 12/758,975 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Introduction Appellant's invention relates to offline data access on computer systems (Spec. if 3). Claim 21 is illustrative of the invention and reads as follows: 21. A method for data communication, the method compnsmg: selecting data by a network interface controller (NIC); copying said selected data, by a processor that is powered on for an operational state, from a storage device to a secondary storage device coupled to a computer device, said NIC, said processor, and said storage device being included within said computer device; accessing said secondary storage device by said NIC while said processor is powered off for an offline state, said storage device being inaccessible by said NIC when said processor is in said offline state, wherein said secondary storage device is remote \x1ith respect to said 1'-JIC; and providing, via said NIC, remote accessibility to said copied selected data stored in said secondary storage device while said processor is in said offline state and while said NIC is powered on for an active state. The Examiner's Rejection Claims 21-23, 31-35, and 41 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Connor (US 2003/0065735 Al; Apr. 3, 2003) and Fleming (US 2005/0198368 Al; Sept. 8, 2005) (See Final Act. 3-16).3 3 The rejections of the remaining claims under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Connor and Fleming in various combinations with other applied prior art are not discussed herein because our decision regarding claim 21 is dispositive. 2 Appeal2014-005039 Application 12/758,975 ANALYSIS With respect to claim 21, the Examiner finds Connor teaches a network adapter controller (i.e., processor) that copies data from a local storage device to a secondary host storage device, but finds Connor does not teach remote accessibility to the data stored in the secondary storage device while the processor is in an offline state (Final Act. 3-5). The Examiner relies on Fleming as teaching offline data accessibility, and finds Fleming's off-load processor allows accessibility to data on a personal digital assistant while a laptop core processor is in an offline state (Final Act. 5---6). The Examiner concludes that one of ordinary skill in the art would have modified the network adapter of Connor to include Fleming's off-load processor in order to power-down select components of Connor, such as the local memory and the network adapter processor (Final Act. 6-7; Ans. 22). As further explained by the Examiner (id.), the combination allows accessibility to the host storage device while the processor is in an oflline state and power to other critical components is maintained. The Examiner finds the combination results in a system with "extended battery life, reduced power consumption and increased energy efficiency" (id.). Appellant contends the combination of Connor and Fleming does not teach providing remote accessibility to the data stored in the secondary storage device, because Connor's host memory is not accessible remotely if Connor's processor is in an offline state (Br. 14--15).4 We agree with Appellant's contention. Access to Connor's host memory requires the 4 Appellant's other contentions are not addressed herein because this contention is dispositive of the appeal before this panel. 3 Appeal2014-005039 Application 12/758,975 network adapter processor to be powered on in order to transfer data packets from local memory through the bus interface to and from the host memory (see Connor i-f 21 ). The Examiner's finding that some components of Connor's network adapter could be turned off, while others remain on, does not explain clearly how the host memory could be accessed when Connor's local memory and processor are in an offline state. Even assuming the addition of Fleming's off-load processor to Connor's network adapter would allow access to the host storage device while Connor's processor is turned off, the Examiner has not identified any teaching or suggestion in the applied prior art, nor has explained how using one processor in place of another results in the proffered motivation of "increased energy efficiency." Therefore, Appellant's arguments have persuaded us of error in the Examiner's position with respect to the rejection of independent claim 21, independent claims 31 and 41 which recite similar limitations, and claims 22, 23, 26----'30, and 32--40 which depend therefrom. DECISION The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 21-23 and 26-41 is reversed. REVERSED 4