Ex Parte Bhoria et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Oct 30, 2018

13973306 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 30, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/973,306 08/22/2013
23494 7590 11/01/2018
TEXAS INSTRUMENTS IN CORPORA TED
PO BOX 655474, MIS 3999
DALLAS, TX 75265
UNITED ST A TES OF AMERICA
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Naveen Bhoria
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.
TI-70933 8931
EXAMINER
BANSAL, GURTEJ
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2139
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
11/01/2018 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):
uspto@ti.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte NA VEEN BHORIA,
JOSEPH RAYMOND MICHAEL ZBICIAK,
RAGURAM DAMODARAN, and ABHIJEET ASHOK CHACHAD
Appeal 2018-003113
Application 13/973,306
Technology Center 2100
Before DENISE M. POTHIER, JOHN P. PINKERTON, and
JOHN D. HAMANN, Administrative Patent Judges.
POTHIER, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants 1, 2 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
rejection of claims 2, 3, 6-8, 10, 12, 16, and 18. Br. 6. We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ). We affirm.
1 Throughout this opinion, we refer to the Final Action (Final Act.) mailed
July 13, 2017, the Appeal Brief (Br.) filed October 13, 2017, and the
Examiner's Answer (Ans.) mailed November 15, 2017. No Reply Brief has
been filed.
Appeal 2018-003113
Application 13/973,306
Invention
Appellants' invention "relates generally to multilevel cache control
and, more particularly, to write-miss buffer control" (Spec. ,r 2) and "write-
miss buffer management that can reduce traffic to the next cache level"
(Spec. ,r 5).
Claim 2 is reproduced below:
2. A method of controlling output traffic from a buffer
that stores write-miss entries associated with one level of a
cache, comprising:
storing a first write-miss entry in the buffer;
delaying outputting the first write-miss entry until a
dynamic condition is satisfied;
merging the first write-miss entry with a second write-
miss entry during the step of delaying; and
outputting a selected entry from the buffer only in
response to a determination that said dynamic condition is
satisfied;
wherein said dynamic condition is satisfied if said
selected entry has been stored in the buffer for a predetermined
number of write cycles.
Br. 10 (Claims App.).
The Examiner relies on the following as evidence of unpatentability:
Piry
Bannon
US 2007/0079070 Al
US 2012/0047332 Al
The Rejection
Apr. 5, 2007
Feb.23,2012
Claims 2, 3, 6-8, 10, 12, 16, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ I03(a) as unpatentable over Piry and Bannon. Final Act. 2-5.
2 The real party in interest is listed as Texas Instruments Incorporated. Br. 1.
2
Appeal 2018-003113
Application 13/973,306
THE CONTENTIONS
Appellants argue claims 2, 3, 6-8, 10, 12, 16, and 18 as a group. Br.
6-8. We select claim 2 as representative. See 37 C.F.R. § 4I.37(c)(l)(iv).
The Examiner finds Piry teaches all of claim 2 's limitations, except
for explicitly teaching "said dynamic condition is satisfied if said selected
entry has been stored in the buff er for a predetermined number of write
cycles." Final Act. 2-3. The Examiner turns to Bannon to teach the above-
quoted limitation. Final Act. 3 (citing Bannon ,r,r 6, 33, 55, Figs. 5, 7).
Appellants assert the Examiner provides no basis for combining
Bannon with Piry and that any rationale is conclusory. Br. 6-7. Appellants
also contend the Examiner "has not provided any ... logical explanation of
where and how the individual elements of Bannon can be added to Piry' s
cache controller or Piry's cache policy" and questions "whether the
combination would still result in the satisfactory functioning [ ofJ the cache
controller." Id. at 8. Even further, Appellants argue the combination does
not teach every element of claims 2, 6, 8, 12, and 16. Id.
ANALYSIS
Based on the record before us, we find no error in the Examiner's
rejection of independent claim 2. The Examiner is correct that claim 2
includes conditional limitations (Ans. 6), including "outputting a selected
entry from the buffer only in response to a determination that said dynamic
condition is satisfied[,] wherein said dynamic condition is satisfied if said
selected entry has been stored in the buffer for a predetermined number of
write cycles." Br. 10 (Claims App.) (emphasis added). Our emphasis
underscores that the term "if' in this clause renders this limitation
3
Appeal 2018-003113
Application 13/973,306
conditional-a condition that need not be satisfied to meet the claim. See Ex
parte Schulhauser, No. 2013-007847, slip op. at 9-10 (PTAB Apr. 28, 2016)
(precedential). As such, the condition set forth in the "outputting" step need
not be present in prior art to teach claim 2. 3 See also Applied Biosystems
Grp. v. Illumina, Inc., 375 Fed. Appx. 12, 21 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (unpublished)
(affirming a method claim's interpretation as including a step that need not
be practiced if the condition for practicing the step is not met).
Despite Appellants' assertion to the contrary (Br. 6-7), the
Examiner's reason to combine Piry and Bannon has a basis with some
rational underpinning. The Examiner explains one skilled in the art would
have recognized combining the references based on Piry's and Bannon's
teachings related to write controllers and buffering writes until a dynamic
condition is satisfied. Ans. 3--4. Specifically, one skilled in the art would
have recognized that combining Bannon's teaching with Piry would have
resulted in modifying Piry' s dynamic condition for outputting selected
entries from a buffer (Final Act. 2 ( citing Piry, Fig. 2); Ans. 3 ( citing same))
to that of another known condition, including the detected activity
of "a predetermined number of write cycles" taught by Bannon, so as to
achieve a desired "performance/bandwidth tradeoff." See Final Act. 3
3 This similarly applies to independent method claims 6 and 8. Br. 10-11
(Claims App.). In contrast, independent claims 12 and 16 recite recite a
different statutory class than claims 2, 6, and 8. Br. 11-12 (Claims App.).
The broadest reasonable interpretation of claims 12 and 16 having a
structure ( e.g., a buffer controller) that performs a function, which only need
to occur if a condition precedent is met ( e.g., if the buffer contains a
predetermined threshold entry number), still requires structure for
performing the function should the condition occur. See Schulhauser, slip
op. at 14--15.
4
Appeal 2018-003113
Application 13/973,306
( citing Bannon ,r,r 6, 33, 55, Figs. 5, 7); see also Ans. 3--4 ( citing same).
Bannon discusses "flush metrics 22" ( e.g., a metric for flushing or
transmitting entries from a buffer) can include a full threshold value based
on write operations (e.g., the recited "predetermined number of write cycles"
in claim 2). Bannon ,r,r 6, 54--55. Bannon therefore provides at least one
known reason (e.g., to achieve a desired performance or bandwidth) with
some rational underpinning (Bannon ,r 6) to combine its entry
flushing/outputting teaching with Piry.
Next, Appellants argue the Examiner has not explained how elements
of Bannon can be added to Piry's cache controller or caching policy. Br. 8.
Bodily incorporation, however, is not the test.
The test for obviousness is not whether the features of a
secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the
structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed
invention rnust be expressly suggested in any one or all of the
references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of
the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill
in the art.
In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413,425 (CCPA 1981)). The Examiner thus need not
explain how Bannon's elements are included or bodily incorporated into
Piry's cache controller/policy to demonstrate obviousness. Also, as
previously discussed, the rejection explains sufficiently what the combined
teachings of Piry and Bannon would have suggested to those of ordinary
skill in the art.
Appellants further assert the Examiner has not shown the proposed
"combination would still result in the satisfactory functioning [ ofJ the cache
controller" and that the references cannot be combined. Br. 8. This mere
assertion fails to rebut sufficiently the Examiner's findings and conclusions.
5
Appeal 2018-003113
Application 13/973,306
For example, Appellants fail to provide persuasive evidence that combining
Bannon's and Piry's teachings related to controllers and buffering entries
would have been uniquely challenging or otherwise beyond the level of
ordinarily skilled artisans. See Leapfrog Enters., Inc. v. Fisher-Price, Inc.,
485 F.3d 1157, 1162 (Fed. Cir. 2007).
To the extent Appellants further contend the rejection does not explain
how the claimed invention would have been obvious (see Br. 7), this
argument is unavailing for reasons previously discussed. We additionally
agree with the Examiner that Appellants cite case law without applying the
law to the claims and the rejection. Ans. 5. Also, the rejection sufficiently
articulates and informs Appellants (Final Act. 2-3; see also Ans. 3--4) how
Piry and Bannon teach or suggest claim 2 's recitations to meet the notice
requirement under 35 U.S.C. § 132. See In re Jung, 637 F.3d 1356, 1363
(Fed. Cir. 2011).
Lastly, Appellants argue the references do not teach every
element of claim 2, but fail to identify any specific limitations in
claim 2 the references do not teach. Br. 8. This assertion is
insufficient to rebut the Examiner's findings and conclusion.
For the foregoing reasons, Appellants have not persuaded us of error
in the rejection of independent claim 2 and claims 3, 6-8, 10, 12, 16, and 18,
which are not separately argued.
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner's rejection of claims 2, 3, 6-8, 10, 12, 16,
and 18 under§ 103.
6
Appeal 2018-003113
Application 13/973,306
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal maybe extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.I36(a)(l)(iv).
AFFIRMED
7