Ex Parte Deshpande et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardMay 20, 201411962331 (P.T.A.B. May. 20, 2014) Copy Citation 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 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation