Ex Parte Peacock et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardMar 19, 201812875918 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 19, 2018) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 12/875,918 09/03/2010 108982 7590 03/21/2018 Wolfe-SBMC 116 W. Pacific A venue Suite 200 Spokane, WA 99201 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Gavin Murray Peacock 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. P956 1197 EXAMINER MEROUAN,ABDERRAHIM ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2619 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 03/21/2018 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): docket@sbmc-law.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte GA VIN MURRAY PEACOCK, WERNER LELAND SHARP, and ANGUS WARD DA VIS Appeal2017-007198 Application 12/875,918 1 Technology Center 2600 Before CARLA M. KRIVAK, BRADLEY W. BAUMEISTER, and JASON V. MORGAN, Administrative Patent Judges. MORGAN, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Introduction This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's Final Rejection of claims 1-20, which constitute all the claims pending in this application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ). We REVERSE. 1 Appellants identify Adobe Systems Incorporated as the real party in interest. Br. 3. Appeal2017-007198 Application 12/875,918 Invention Appellants disclose technologies "for caching during media rendering" that include "managing [a] first object in a cache memory using a management object that is added to and removed from the cache memory along with the first object." Abstract. Illustrative Claim (key limitations emphasized) 1. A computer-implemented method comprising: receiving a request to load a digital image object for rendering to a display device; generating a first object from the digital image object; and managing memory operations of the first object in a cache memory using a management object generated separately when the first object is generated that references only to the first object, the management object added to the cache memory before the first object is added to the cache memory, and removed from the cache memory together with the first object. References and Rejections The Examiner rejects claims 1--4, 7-11, 14--17, 19, and 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Gut et al. (US 2004/0172495 Al; published Sept. 2, 2004) ("Gut") and Degenaro et al. (US 6,654,766 Bl; issued Nov. 25, 2003) ("Degenaro"). Final Act. 2-11. The Examiner rejects claims 5, 6, 12, 13, and 18 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Gut, Degenaro, and Schmidt et al. (US 7,337,273 B2; issued Feb. 26, 2008) ("Schmidt"). Final Act. 11-14. CONTENTIONS In rejecting claim 1, the Examiner relies on Degenaro's start_times and end_times values for objects in a cache to render obvious the claimed management object, and on Degenaro's cache manager initialization 2 Appeal2017-007198 Application 12/875,918 teachings to render obvious the memory management object being added to the cache memory before the first object is added to the cache memory, and being removed from the cache memory together with the first object. Final Act. 3--4 (citing Degenaro col. 3, 11. 25-28, col. 4, 11. 8-13, col. 6, 11. 35---60, and col. 7, 11. 8-28). Appellants contend the Examiner erred because Degenaro' s teachings are limited to "ways to initialize a cache, configure collections in the cache, calculate values for the collections [regarding] first_times and last_times, update the collections as necessary, and assign an update_time to the collection." Br. 17. Appellants argue Degenaro fails to "describe the addition of values to the cache memory before the related object is added to the cache memory" (id. (emphasis added)) or "the removal of values from the cache memory along with the related object" (id. at 18 (emphasis changed from original)). The Examiner responds by noting that "Degenaro creates a start_time ... before adding the corresponding object to the cache as described," which "shows that the start time exists ... before the corresponding [ o ]bject is added to the cache memory." Ans. 16 (citing Degenaro col. 13, 11. 1-8). The Examiner also finds "[ w ]hen the object is deleted[,] it is obvious that the corresponding start time and end time are deleted together with the corresponding object too, because there is no need for [the] start time value and end time value to be stored ... when the corresponding [object] is deleted." Ans. 16. ANALYSIS We agree with Appellants the Examiner erred because the Examiner provides insufficient support for the finding that Degenaro' s start_time and 3 Appeal2017-007198 Application 12/875,918 end_time values (i.e., management objects) are added to and removed from the cache memory. The Examiner finds that Degenaro "creates a start time ... in the cache memory," that the existence of a start_time before an object added "shows that the start_time exists in the cache memory," and that Degenaro' s start_time and end_time values are "stored in the cache memory." Id. However, the cited portions of Degenaro merely teach that "[ w ]henever a start_time is encountered, the corresponding object is added. In addition, whenever an end_time is encountered, the corresponding object is deleted." Degenaro col. 13, 11. 3---6. This relationship between the interval in which an object is available in cache and the information describing the time interval fails to describe the storage location of the information describing the time interval. This sharply contrasts with the claimed invention's recitation of "a management object generated separately when the first object is generated that references only to the first object," with the claim including recitations explicitly directed to adding the management object to the cache and removing the management object/ram the cache. See also Spec. Fig. 1, i-f 22 (both object 114a and management object 115 are stored in cache 110). The Examiner does not rely on Gut with respect to the disputed recitation. Therefore, we agree with Appellants that the Examiner's findings fail to show that the combination of Gut and Degenaro renders obvious "the management object added to the cache memory before the first object is added to the cache memory, and removed from the cache memory together with the first object." Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner's 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of claim 1. Claims 2-20 contain similar recitations and the 4 Appeal2017-007198 Application 12/875,918 Examiner does not show that Schmidt cures the noted deficiency. Therefore, we also do not sustain the Examiner's 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejections of claims 2-20. DECISION We reverse the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-20. REVERSED 5 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation