Ex Parte Peacock et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 19, 2018

12875918 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 19, 2018)

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