Ex Parte Chin et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardMar 25, 2014

10552601 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 25, 2014)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARKOFFICE 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. 10/552,601 10/05/2005 Chung Kuang Chin Terablaze 4 6402 47386 7590 03/25/2014 RYAN, MASON & LEWIS, LLP 1175 POST ROAD EAST 2ND FLOOR WESTPORT, CT 06880 EXAMINER HO, CHUONG T ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2412 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 03/25/2014 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 CHUNG KUANG CHIN, YAW FANN, and ROY T. MYERS, JR.1 ________________ Appeal 2011-011380 Application 10/552,601 Technology Center 2400 ________________ Before, CAROLYN D. THOMAS, CARL W. WHITEHEAD JR., and JASON V. MORGAN, Administrative Patent Judges. MORGAN, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Introduction This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s Non- Final Rejection of claims 1–8 and 18–24. App. Br. 2. Claims 14–17 are cancelled. Id. at 1. The Examiner has indicated claims 9–13 are allowable. Id. at 2. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM. 1 Agere Systems Inc. is the Real Party in Interest. App. Br. 1. Appeal 2011-011380 Application 10/552,601 2 Invention Appellants invented a method for “stor[ing] sequential data units of a data packet in contiguous banks of a buffer in a shared memory.” Spec. 2, ll. 11–12. Exemplary Claims Claims 1, 2, and 6, reproduced below with disputed limitations emphasized, are representative: 1. A method for storing a packet in a shared memory in a packet switch, said method comprising the step of: storing in said shared memory, wherein said shared memory comprises two or more buffers and two or more banks, at least a portion of a packet in contiguous banks of a first buffer of said two or more buffers, wherein each of said banks comprises portions, wherein each of said two or more buffers comprises a portion from each of said plurality of banks, and wherein each of said buffers identifies an address of a location in each of said banks. 2. The method of claim 1, wherein said packet comprises a plurality of portions, and further comprising the step of storing an additional portion of said packet in contiguous banks of a second buffer if one of said portions is stored in a last bank of said first buffer and said portion stored in said last bank of said first buffer is not a last portion of said packet. 6. The method of claim 1, wherein said banks are divided into a first set of banks and a second set of banks, and further comprising the step of allocating a buffer that comprises one or more banks from said first set and a buffer that comprises one or more banks from said second set in response to a buffer request. Appeal 2011-011380 Application 10/552,601 3 Rejections The Examiner rejects claims 1, 4, 7, 8, 18, 21, and 23 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Muller (U.S. 6,021,132) and Sindhu (U.S. 7,116,660 B2). Ans. 5–11. The Examiner rejects claims 2 and 19 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Muller, Sindhu, and Benson (U.S. 6,151,321). Ans. 11–12. The Examiner rejects claims 3 and 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Muller, Sindhu, and Kamaraj (U.S. 6,501,757 B1). Ans. 12–13. The Examiner rejects claim 5 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Muller, Sindhu, and Beshai (U.S. 2004/0184448 A1). Ans. 13–14. The Examiner rejects claims 6 and 22 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Muller, Sindhu, and Lavelle (U.S. 6,812,929 B2). Ans. 14–16. The Examiner rejects claim 24 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Muller, Sindhu, and Manning (U.S. 6,088,736). Ans. 16– 18. ISSUES 1. Did the Examiner err in finding the combination of Muller and Sindhu teaches or suggests a “shared memory compris[ing] two or more buffers and two or more banks . . . wherein each of said two or more buffers comprises a portion from each of said plurality of banks,” as recited in claim 1? Appeal 2011-011380 Application 10/552,601 4 2. Did the Examiner err in finding that the combination of Muller, Sindhu, and Benson teaches or suggests “storing an additional portion of said packet in contiguous banks of a second buffer if one of said portions is stored in a last bank of said first buffer and said portion stored in said last bank of said first buffer is not a last portion of said packet,” as recited in claim 2? 3. Did the Examiner err in finding that Lavelle teaches or suggests “allocating a buffer that comprises one or more banks from said first set and a buffer that comprises one or more banks from said second set in response to a buffer request,” as recited in claim 6? ANALYSIS Claims 1, 3–5, 7, 8, 18, and 20–24 The Examiner finds that the combination of Muller and Sindhu teaches or suggests a “shared memory compris[ing] two or more buffers and two or more banks . . . wherein each of said two or more buffers comprises a portion from each of said plurality of banks,” as recited in claim 1. Ans. 5– 7. Specifically, the Examiner finds Muller teaches a shared memory that comprises two or more buffers. Id. at 5 (citing Muller col. 8, ll. 37–39, Fig. 3A). The Examiner further finds Sindhu teaches two or more buffers comprise a portion from each of a plurality of banks. Id. at 6 (citing Sindhu Fig. 9 and col. 14, ll. 30–35). The Examiner notes Appellants’ Specification describes a shared memory as having an arrangement of columns and rows, wherein the columns are buffers and the rows are banks. Ans. 18 (citing Spec. Fig. 1 and pg. 5, ll. 11–17). Appellants contend Fig. 9 of Sindhu does not teach or suggest a shared memory, buffers, or banks. App. Br. 4. Appellants also contend that Appeal 2011-011380 Application 10/552,601 5 Muller does not teach or suggest buffers “compris[ing] a portion from each of said plurality of banks,” as recited in claim 1. We disagree with Appellants that the combination of Muller and Sindhu does not teach or suggest the features of claim 1. Regarding Appellants’ argument that Sindhu fails to teach a shared memory and two or more buffers, we note the Examiner cited to Muller for teaching shared memory comprising a plurality of buffers. Ans. 5–6. Appellants’ arguments regarding Sindhu do not refute the Examiner’s findings with respect to Muller. Regarding Appellants’ contention that Sindhu’s Fig. 9 does not teach banks, the Examiner correctly finds Appellants’ Specification describes banks of the shared memory as rows in a two-dimensional depiction of memory. Ans. 18 (citing Spec. 5, ll. 11–17, Fig. 1). Therefore, the Examiner correctly finds that Sindhu’s two-dimensional depiction of rows and columns of memory, in light of Sindhu’s teaching of memory banks, teaches Appellants’ banks as claimed in claim 1. With respect to Appellants’ contention that Muller does not teach or suggest buffers “compris[ing] a portion from each of said plurality of banks,” we note the Examiner cited to Sindhu for teaching the overlapping structure of rows and columns in a two-dimensional memory. Ans. 6. Therefore, Appellants’ argument against Muller does not address the Examiner’s findings with respect to Sindhu. Thus, we do not find error in the Examiner’s finding that the combination of Muller and Sindhu teaches or suggests a “shared memory compris[ing] two or more buffers and two or more banks . . . wherein each of said two or more buffers comprises a portion from each of said plurality of banks,” as recited in claim 1. Appeal 2011-011380 Application 10/552,601 6 Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a), and of claims 3–5, 7, 8, 18, 20–24, which are not argued separately. Claims 2 and 19 The Examiner finds the combination of Muller, Sindhu, and Benson teaches or suggests “storing an additional portion of said packet in contiguous banks of a second buffer if one of said portions is stored in a last bank of said first buffer and said portion stored in said last bank of said first buffer is not a last portion of said packet,” as recited in claim 2. Ans. 11–12. Specifically, the Examiner finds Benson teaches filling a first buffer and placing the rest of a cell into a second buffer. Id. (citing Benson Fig. 7B). Appellants contend that “Benson . . . does not disclose or suggest storing an additional portion of a packet in contiguous banks of a second buffer if one of the portions is stored in a last bank of a first buffer and a portion stored in the last bank of the first buffer is not a last portion of the packet.” App. Br. 5. Attorney arguments and conclusory statements unsupported by factual evidence are entitled to little probative value. In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1470 (Fed. Cir. 1997); see also In re Lovin, 652 F.3d 1349, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (holding that the Board reasonably interpreted 37 C.F.R. § 41.37 (c)(1)(vii) as requiring “more substantive arguments in an appeal brief than a mere recitation of the claim elements and a naked assertion that the corresponding elements were not found in the prior art”); Ex parte Belinne, No. 2009-004693, slip op. at 7-8, 2009 WL 2477843, *3–4 (BPAI Aug. 10, 2009) (informative). Appellants’ contention that Benson does not teach or Appeal 2011-011380 Application 10/552,601 7 suggest the features of claim 2 is conclusory because Appellants have not explained why the Examiner’s findings are in error. Thus, we are not persuaded by Appellants’ contention that Benson fails to disclose the features recited in claim 2. Therefore, we do not find error in Examiner’s finding that the combination of Muller, Sindhu, and Benson teaches or suggests “storing an additional portion of said packet in contiguous banks of a second buffer if one of said portions is stored in a last bank of said first buffer and said portion stored in said last bank of said first buffer is not a last portion of said packet,” as recited in claim 2. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 2 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a), and of claim 19, which is not argued separately. Claims 6 and 22 The Examiner finds the combination of Muller, Sindhu, and Lavelle teaches “allocating a buffer that comprises one or more banks from said first set and a buffer that comprises one or more banks from said second set in response to a buffer request,” as recited in claim 6. Ans. 14–16. Specifically, the Examiner finds Muller teaches allocating a buffer in response to a buffer request. Id. at 15 (citing Muller Fig. 5 and col. 10, ll. 50–53). The Examiner finds Lavelle teaches banks divided into a first set of banks and a second set of banks and a buffer comprising one or more banks from the first set of banks and a buffer comprising one or more banks from the second set of banks. Id. (citing Lavelle col. 14, ll. 59–62). Appellants contend “Lavelle…does not disclose or suggest allocating a buffer that comprises one or more banks from a first set of banks and a buffer that comprises one or more banks from a second set of banks in Appeal 2011-011380 Application 10/552,601 8 response to a buffer request.” App. Br. 6. We disagree and note the Examiner relies on Muller to teach the emphasized feature of claim 6. Thus, Appellants’ argument is not responsive to the Examiner’s rejection. Furthermore, one cannot show nonobviousness by individually attacking prior art references used in a 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection. In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981). Appellants also contend “Lavelle does not disclose or suggest a buffer that comprises one or more banks from a first set of banks and a buffer that comprises one or more banks from a second set of banks.” App. Br. 6. However, Appellants do not provide persuasive arguments or evidence to support this conclusory assertion. Therefore, we do not find error in Examiner’s finding that the combination of Muller, Sindhu, and Lavelle teaches or suggests “allocating a buffer that comprises one or more banks from said first set and a buffer that comprises one or more banks from said second set in response to a buffer request,” as recited in claim 6. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 6 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a), and of claim 22, which is not argued separately. DECISION We affirm the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–8 and 18–24 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). 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 Appeal 2011-011380 Application 10/552,601 9 tj