Ex Parte Gee et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardMar 28, 201411457414 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 28, 2014) Copy Citation UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE _____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD _____________ Ex parte TIMOTHY W. GEE and MARK A. RINALDI _____________ Appeal 2011-010275 Application 11/457,414 Technology Center 2100 ______________ Before STEVEN D.A. McCARTHY, DAVID M. KOHUT, and JEREMY J. CURCURI, Administrative Patent Judges. KOHUT, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2011-010275 Application 11/457,414 2 This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the Final Rejection of claims 1, 3-6, 8-11, 13-14, 17, and 20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We reverse the Examiner’s rejection of these claims. INVENTION The invention is directed to a primary processor to execute a common operating system and a secondary processor that is placed in a wake state in the event of detection of a special condition. The secondary processor remains in a sleep state in which a cache of the secondary processor is maintained during non-detection of the special condition. Spec. 3-4. Claim 1 is illustrative of the invention and is reproduced below: 1. A multi-processor system to allocate processing functions of a common operating system between a primary processor and a secondary processor, comprising: a primary processor to execute the common operating system to perform processor functions exclusive of a secondary processor, the processing functions comprising application code execution, during non-detection of a special condition, and to place the secondary processor in a wake state in the event of detection of the special condition; and a secondary processor to execute the common operating system to perform at least some processor functions when a special condition is detected and the secondary processor is in the wake state, and the secondary processor to remain in a sleep state in which a cache of the secondary processor is maintained during non-detection of the special condition, and the secondary processor when in the wake state to be placed in the sleep state if a monitored temperature exceeds a threshold. Appeal 2011-010275 Application 11/457,414 3 REFERENCE Suzuoki US 2006/0259743 A1 Nov. 16, 2006 (filed May 10, 2005) REJECTIONS AT ISSUE1,2,3,4 Claims 1, 3-6, 8-11, 13, 14, 17, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as anticipated by Suzuoki. Ans. 4-6. ISSUES Did the Examiner err in finding that Suzuoki discloses maintaining the cache of a secondary processor when the secondary processor is in a sleep state, as required by claim 1 (and similarly required by claims 10 and 14)? 1 The Examiner originally rejected claims 1, 3-6, 8-11, 13, 14, 17, and 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Cupps in view of Finlay in view of Omizo in view of Hamilton. Final Rej. 4-8. The Examiner has withdrawn this rejection. Ans. 3. 2 The Examiner originally rejected claims 15, 16, and 18 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Cupps in view of Finlay in view of Omizo in view of Hamilton in view of Char Sample. Final Rej. 8. The Examiner has withdrawn this rejection. Ans. 3. 3 The Examiner originally rejected claims 7, 12 and 19 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Cupps in view of Finlay in view of Omizo in view of Hamilton in view of Yamada. Final Rej. 9. The Examiner has withdrawn this rejection. Ans. 3. 4 As a result, the Examiner indicated that claims 7, 12, 15, 16, 18 and 19 are objected as to being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. Ans. 6. Appeal 2011-010275 Application 11/457,414 4 ANALYSIS Claim 1 requires maintaining the cache of a secondary processor when the secondary processor is in a sleep state. Independent claims 10 and 14 have a similar limitation. Claims 3-6, 8, 9, 11, 13, 17, and 20 variously depend from independent claims 1, 10, and 14. The Examiner finds that Suzuoki discloses the disputed limitation because Suzuoki specifically discloses powering the hibernating processor at a level that enables rudimentary processor operation. Ans. 5 and 7-8. Thus, the Examiner finds that because the processor is never completely powered off, the cache is maintained. Ans. 8. Additionally, the Examiner finds that if the cache was not maintained, the hibernating processor, in Suzuoki, would have to go through a conventional initialization procedure before the processor performed the next action. Ans. 7. However, Appellants contend that just because the processor maintains power does not necessarily mean that the cache is maintained, nor does skipping a conventional initialization procedure because Suzuoki does not indicate that every initialization procedure is skipped. Reply Br. 7-9. Therefore, Appellants contend that there is nothing in Suzuoki that either expressly or inherently indicates that the cache is maintained, as required by the claims. Reply Br. 9. We agree with Appellants. The Examiner has not shown, nor do we find, that Suzuoki either expressly or inherently maintains a cache by merely disclosing that the hibernating processor may not need to go through a conventional initialization procedure. While we agree that the conventional initialization procedure may not occur, we also agree with Appellants (Reply Br. 8) that Suzuoki does not indicate that no initialization procedure occurs. Thus, we Appeal 2011-010275 Application 11/457,414 5 do not agree with the Examiner that Suzuoki discloses maintaining a cache, as required by the claims. Accordingly, for the reasons stated supra, we reverse the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 3-6, 8-11, 13, 14, 17, and 20. CONCLUSION The Examiner erred in finding that Suzuoki discloses maintaining the cache of a secondary processor when the secondary processor is in a sleep state, as required by claim 1 (and similarly required by claims 10 and 14). SUMMARY The Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1, 3-6, 8-11, 13, 14, 17, and 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) is reversed. REVERSED tj Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation