Ex Parte Palin et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardFeb 11, 2016

11848739 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 11, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR 111848,739 08/31/2007 Arto Palin 100809 7590 02/16/2016 Core Wireless Licensing Ltd 5601 Granite Parkway Suite 1300 Plano, TX 75024 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. NC61018-US-PAT 4297 EXAMINER MAI,KEVINS ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2456 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 02/16/2016 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): ipadmin-core@core-wireless.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Exparte ARTO PALIN, JURA-MATTI TUUPOLA, and OLLITYRKKO Appeal2014-001994 Application 11/848,739 Technology Center 2400 Before ALLEN R. MACDONALD, HUNG H. BUI, and DANIEL N. FISHMAN, Administrative Patent Judges. MacDONALD, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal2014-001994 Application 11/848,739 STATEMENT OF CASE Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 134(a) from a rejection of claims 1, 2, 4--10, 19, 21, 22, and 24--36, all the remaining claims of the application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 6(b). Exemplary Claims Claim 1 under appeal reads as follows (emphasis added): 1. A method, comprising: communicating in a shared information space shared by a plurality of devices and accessible by nodes in the plurality of devices, each node corresponding to a program that at least one of writes information to, or reads information from, the shared information space; determining whether at least one node requires information from the shared information space; when it is determined that the at least one node requires information; further determining whether operation of the shared information space needs adjusting by exchanging device and connectivity information for each of the plurality of devices communicating within the shared information space, the device and connectivity information comprising at least node information, amount of memory, and battery status; and when it is determined that the shared information space needs adjusting, adjusting operation of the shared information space based on the exchanged information. 2 Appeal2014-001994 Application 11/848,739 Rejections on Appeal 1. The Examiner rejected claims 1, 2, 4--7, 9, 10, 19, 21, 22, 24-- 26 and 28-36, as being unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) over the combination of Carter et al. (US 6,148,377, issued Nov. 4, 2000) and Hassan et al. (US 2006/0129850 Al, June 15, 2006). 1 2. The Examiner rejected claims 8 and 27 as being unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) over the combination of Carter, Hassan, and Wang (US 2008/0025330 Al, published Jan. 2008).2 Appellants' Contentions3 1. Appellants contend that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) because: Based on what Carter does disclose, it seems clear that the migration controller or similar controller of Carter is focused solely on moving memory resources. Data access patterns, resource demands, and other criteria or heuristics in the strict context of managing memory resources is not the same as determining that a node requires information. Data access patterns and resource demands imply looking at past access requests and past or current memory resource allocations. In contrast, Part B of claim 1 includes determining whether at least one node requires information. App. Br. 13.4 1 As to this rejection, our decision as to the rejection of claim 1 is determinative. Therefore, except for our ultimate decision, the rejection of claims 2, 4--7, 9, 10, 19, 21, 22, 24--26 and 28-36, is not discussed further herein. 2 As to this rejection, our decision as to the underlyingÂ§ 103 rejection of claim 1 is determinative. Therefore, except for our ultimate decision, the rejection of these claims is not discussed further herein. 3 Contention 3 is determinative as to the rejections on appeal. 3 Appeal2014-001994 Application 11/848,739 2. Appellants also contend that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) because: Looking at past data access patterns and even current memory resource allocations is not a determination of whether at least one node requires information, for instance in the mobile environment, where requirements for information may change as devices become inaccessible due to connectivity issues including constraints like battery status. See for example page 2, lines 6-12 and page 6, line 27 to page 7, line 13 of the Appellants' specification. Besides "connectivity information" in the form of "battery status" being absent from Carter as admitted by the Examiner, "connectivity information" in the form of "node information" is also absent from Carter. It is not specifically pointed out where Carter discloses "exchanging device and connectivity information for each of the plurality of devices" as per Part (C2). App. Br. 14. 3. Appellants contend that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) because: Further regarding the claimed "determining whether operation of the shared information space needs adjusting" as per Part (C2) of claim 1, in addition to Carter at least fails failing to disclose or suggest that device and connectivity information is exchanged, Carter also fails to disclose an exchange much less for each of the plurality of devices communicating within the shared information space. In other words, the device and connectivity information is exchanged for each of the plurality of devices when it is determined that at least one node requires information. 4 Contentions 1 and 2 reproduced here are exemplary of Appellants' additional ten-plus contentions, which are deemed to overstate the differences between Appellants' claimed invention and the prior art. As those contentions were unpersuasive and are not determinative of the result reached herein, they are not discussed particularly herein. 4 Appeal2014-001994 Application 11/848,739 App. Br. 14--15. That is, Appellants contend the Examiner failed to show that Carter teaches "when it is determined that the at least one node requires information, further determining whether operation of the shared information space needs adjusting by exchanging device and connectivity information for each of the plurality of devices communicating within the shared information space" as recited in claim 1. App. Br. 15-16. Issues on Appeal Did the Examiner err in rejecting claim 1 as being obvious? ANALYSIS As to Appellants' above contention 1, we disagree. Appellants' argument focuses on Carter's end result of "moving memory resources" while dismissing Carter's preliminary steps to achieve that result. Contrary to Appellants' argument, Carter explicitly teaches that the initial step in Carters memory management process is to determine that a node requires information. Once the owner node has performed the requested memory operation, such as reading a page of data, the memory subsystem 40 of the owner node can then transfer the page of data, or a copy of the page of data, via the network 54 to the node that originally requested access to that portion of the shared memory. Carter 9:66-10:4, emphasis added. As to Appellants' above contention 2, we disagree. Contrary to Appellants' argument, Carter also shows that connectivity information in the form of "node information" is used. 5 Appeal2014-001994 Application 11/848,739 [W]hen a first node accesses a page of the shared memory space which is not stored locally on that node, the directory manager 4 identifies a node that has a copy of the data stored in that page and moves a copy of that data into the local memory of the requesting node. Carter 10:9-14, emphasis added. As to Appellants' above contention 3, we agree. Although we agree with the Examiner's finding that Carter teaches adjusting operation of the shared information space based on exchanged device and connectivity information (Final Act. 6-7), Appellants correctly point out that claim 1 requires that every time it is determined that a node requires information this is followed by exchanging device and connectivity information for each of the plurality of devices communicating within the shared information space to, thus, determine whether operation of the shared information space needs adjusting. The analysis presented by the Examiner is insufficient to show whether an artisan would recognize that such continuous universal exchanging is required when moving from the prior art wired network system to a conventional wireless system. Each other independent claim (19, 22, and 25) includes a similar recitation and, thus, we find the same error in the rejection of each independent claim and all dependent claims. CONCLUSIONS (1) Appellants have established that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1, 2, 4--10, 19, 21, 22, and 24--36 as being unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a). 6 Appeal2014-001994 Application 11/848,739 (2) On this record, claims 1, 2, 4--10, 19, 21, 22, and 24--36 have not been shown to be unpatentable. DECISION The Examiner's rejections of claims 1, 2, 4--10, 19, 21, 22, and 24--36 are reversed. REVERSED mp 7