Ex Parte Bu

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 16, 2016

12646945 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 16, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/646,945 12/23/2009
109673 7590 03/18/2016
McClure, Qualey & Rodack, LLP
3100 Interstate North Circle
Suite 150
Atlanta, GA 30339
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Yong-Hua Bu
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.
251812-4320 1031
EXAMINER
SHAH, KAMIN! S
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2123
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/18/2016 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):
uspatents@mqrlaw.com
dan.mcclure@mqrlaw.com
gina.silverio@mqrlaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte YONG-HUA BU
Appeal2014-004269
Application 12/646,945
Technology Center 2100
Before MAHSHID D. SAADAT, JAMES R. HUGHES, and
MONICA S. ULLAGADDI, Administrative Patent Judges.
ULLAGADDI, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
AppeUant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a final rejection of
claims 1-18.
We reverse.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Claim 1, reproduced below with the disputed limitation emphasized, is
illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1 A platform implemented in a computing device for simulating
a chip comprising:
a component module, for storing a plurality of component
models and information related to the plurality of component
models, wherein each of the plurality of component models is
Appeal2014-004269
Application 12/646,945
built with classes of component models derived from a base
class;
a configuration module, for generating a configuration
result according to a component model needed by the chip; and
a top module, coupled to the component module and the
configuration module, for reading information related to the
component model from the component module according to the
configuration result so as to simulate the chip.
REJECTIONS
Claims 1, 2, 4--10, and 12-18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §102(b)
as being anticipated by Chen (US 2003/0009730 Al; Jan. 9, 2003). Final
Act. 3-7.
Claims 3 and 11 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Chen and Official Notice. Final Act. 7-8.
ANALYSIS
Issue: Did the Examiner err in finding Chen discloses "each of the plurality
of component models is built with classes of component models derived
from a base class," as recited in claim 1, and commensurate limitations of
claims 9 and 18?
The Examiner construes the term "derive" in accordance with its
dictionary definition as meaning "to take, receive, or obtain especially from
a specified source." Ans. 3. The Examiner further construes the term "base
class" in accordance with its usage in the Specification and specifically, as
"the first layer of what things can be derived from." Id. citing Specification
ii 14.
The Examiner finds Chen's base platform layer 310 comprises a
compute engine, examples of which include, "microprocessors, digital signal
2
Appeal2014-004269
Application 12/646,945
processor, micro-controllers, and the like" and further, that the "compute
engine is the base class since all further components must be derived from
the compute engine layer which means that they are compatible with the
compute engine." Ans. 3 (emphasis added); see also Final Act. 3 citing
Chen i-f 85. Specifically, "[t]he peripheral layer shown by item 320, figure
3 a of Chen still must be derived (compatible) with the base layer including
the compute engine item 310, figure 3a." Ans. 4 citing Chen i-fi-185 and 91
(cited by the Examiner as describing "compatibility derivation").
First, Appellant argues "one of ordinary skill in the art would not
construe such compute engines (e.g., microprocessors, digital signal
processor, micro-controllers, and the like) to be equivalent to the 'base class'
of claim 1." App. Br. 8. Second, with respect to the Examiner's findings,
Appellant argues,
[ e ]ven assuming, arguendo, that the compute engine of Chen
could be construed as a 'base class,' ... it is unclear how the IP
parts 220 (allegedly the 'plurality of component models') that
comprise such components as H/W components, embedded
S/W, vendor supplied generators, etc. are built with classes of
component models derived from the compute engine ... that
comprises such components as microprocessors, digital signal
processor, micro-controllers, etc.
Id. at 8-9. Third, Appellant contends paragraph 91 of Chen merely discloses
the main system components support the AMBA AHB specification are
"determined based on the information stored in database 260." Reply Br. 5-
6.
We agree with Appellant that even if one of ordinary skill in the art
interpreted the claimed "base class" as broadly as "the first layer of what
things can be derived from," it is not clear from Chen's disclosure that IP
3
Appeal2014-004269
Application 12/646,945
parts 220 (characterized as the claimed "plurality of component models") are
built with classes of component models derived from the compute engine
(characterized as the claimed "base class"). Cf Ans. 3. See App. Br. 8-9;
see also Reply Br. 4--5. Chen describes a base platform layer 310 which
includes a compute engine and peripheral layer 320 which includes "IP
components which are required for the targeted design but which are not part
of the compute engine." Chen i-f 85. Chen further describes determining
main system components that support a particular specification, based on
information stored in a database 260, once a bus type is determined. Id. at i-f
91. Thus, we are persuaded the Examiner erred in finding "each of the
plurality of component models is built with classes of component models
derived/ram a base class," as recited in claim 1, and commensurate
limitations of claims 9 and 18.
Accordingly, we do not sustain the 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) rejection of
claims 1, 2, 4--10, and 12-18, nor the 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of claims 3
and 11, because the proposed modification to Chen does not make up for the
deficiency of Chen discussed above.
DECISION
The Examiner's decision to reject claims 1-18 is reversed.
REVERSED
4