Ex Parte Deshpande et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

May 20, 2014

11962331 (P.T.A.B. May. 20, 2014)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte SANJAY R. DESHPANDE,
KLAS M. BRUCE, and
MICHAEL D. SNYDER
____________

Appeal 2011-013110
Application 11/962,331
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 2011-013110
Application 11/962,331

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the Examiner
finally rejecting claims 1, 2, 6-12, 14, and 17. Claims 3-5, 13, 15, and 16
have been indicated as containing allowable subject matter. Final Rej. 9.1
We have jurisdiction over the appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
The present invention relates generally to multiple-processor systems
and more particularly to cache coherency in multiple-processor systems.
Spec. ¶ [0001].
Claim 1 is illustrative:
1. A method comprising:
providing, from a processor, a memory request and a first
coherency state value for a coherency granule associated with
the memory request; and
providing, from the processor, a select one of a first
indicator or a second indicator in response to determining
whether the first coherency state value represents a cumulative
coherency state for a plurality of caches of the processor, the
first indicator identifying the first coherency state value as
representing a cumulative coherency state and the second
indicator identifying the first coherency state value as
representing a potentially non-cumulative coherency state.

Appellants appeal the following rejection:
The Examiner rejected claims 1, 2, 6-12, 14, and 17 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Glasco (US 2004/0236912 A1, Nov. 25,
2004) and Mizutani (US 2004/0076154 A1, Apr. 22, 2004). Ans. 4-10.

1 Throughout this opinion we refer to the Final Rejection (“Final Rej.”)
mailed August 18, 2010, the Appeal Brief (“App. Br.”) filed March 3, 2011,
and the Examiner’s Answer mailed June 8, 2011.
Appeal 2011-013110
Application 11/962,331

3
ISSUE
Appellants argue on pages 6 through 10 of the Appeal Brief that the
Examiner’s rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) is in error. This argument
presents us with the issue: Did the Examiner err in finding that the
combined teachings of Glasco and Mizutani teach or suggest “the first
indicator identifying the first coherency state value as representing a
cumulative coherency state and the second indicator identifying the first
coherency state value as representing a potentially non-cumulative
coherency state,” as recited in claim 1, and similarly argued for independent
claims 8 and 14 (emphases added, hereinafter “first indicator” and “second
indicator,” respectively)?2

ANALYSIS
We begin by noting that the disputed “first indicator” and “second
indicator” recited in representative claim 1 constitute non-functional
descriptive material for they merely recite different types of data because
“cumulative coherency state” and “non-cumulative coherency state” do not
functionally limit the claimed invention. Therefore, the disputed first and
second indicators constitute non-functional descriptive material that does not
patentably distinguish over prior art that otherwise renders the claims
unpatentable.
The Examiner need not give patentable weight to descriptive material
absent a new and unobvious functional relationship between the descriptive
material and the substrate. See In re Lowry, 32 F.3d 1579, 1582-83 (Fed.

2 Separate patentability is not argued for dependent claims 2, 6, 7, 9-12, and
17. App. Br. 10.
Appeal 2011-013110
Application 11/962,331

4
Cir. 1994); In re Ngai, 367 F.3d 1336, 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (nonfunctional
descriptive material cannot render nonobvious an invention that would have
otherwise been obvious); see also Ex parte Mathias, 84 USPQ2d 1276
(BPAI 2005) (informative), aff’d, 191 Fed. Appx. 959 (Fed. Cir. 2006).
Consequently, we conclude there is no reversible error in the
Examiner’s rejections of (1) independent claim 1, (2) independent claims 8
and 14 argued together with claim 1, and (3) dependent claims 2, 6, 7, 9-12,
and 17 not separately argued.

DECISION
The Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 1, 2, 6-12, 14, and 17
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Glasco and Mizutani.
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