Marc A. Schaub et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Sep 12, 2019

14262298 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Sep. 12, 2019)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
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
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
14/262,298 04/25/2014 Marc A. Schaub 8888-34500 2173
81310 7590 09/12/2019
Meyertons, Hood, Kivlin, Kowert & G (Apple)
P.O. BOX 398
Austin, TX 78767-0398
EXAMINER
ALSIP, MICHAEL
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2136
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/12/2019 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):
patent_docketing@intprop.com
ptomhkkg@gmail.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte MARC A. SCHAUB, JEFFREY J. IRWIN,
and PETER F. HOLLAND
____________________

Appeal 2018-002736
Application 14/262,2981
Technology Center 2100
____________________
Before DEBRA K. STEPHENS, JASON V. MORGAN, and
JEREMY J. CURCURI, Administrative Patent Judges.
STEPHENS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of
claims 1, 5–8, 12, 15, 19, and 20, which are all of the claims pending in the
application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
According to Appellants, the claims are directed to a request
aggregation with opportunism (Abstract). Claim 1, reproduced below, is
exemplary of the claimed subject matter:
1. A display pipeline comprising:

1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Apple Inc. (App. Br.
2).
Appeal 2018-002736
Application 14/262,298

2
a plurality of requestors, wherein each requestor of the plurality of
requestors has a corresponding threshold number of a plurality of
requests to be aggregated before transmission of a request is
permitted; and

logic configured to monitor a number of pending requests that have
been aggregated corresponding to each of the plurality of requestors;

wherein in response to determining a first requestor of the plurality of
requestors has reached its corresponding threshold number of
requests:

issue pending requests of the first requestors; and

issue pending requests of one or more requestors of the
plurality of requestors other than the first requestor, even
though said one or more requestors have not aggregated their
corresponding threshold number of requests.

REFERENCE
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Wasserman US 2003/0137528 A1 July 24, 2003
REJECTION
Claims 1, 5–8, 12, 15, 19, and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§102(b) as being anticipated by Wasserman (Final Act. 2–4).

ANALYSIS
Appellants contend their invention as recited in claims 1, 5–8, 12, 15,
19 and 20 is patentable over Wasserman (App. Br. 6–17). Appellants
contend Wasserman fails to disclose “each requestor of the plurality of
Appeal 2018-002736
Application 14/262,298

3
requestors has a corresponding threshold number of a plurality of requests to
be aggregated before transmission of a request is permitted” and “in
response to determining a first requestor of the plurality of requestors has
reached its corresponding threshold number of requests: . . . issue pending
requests of one or more requestors of the plurality of requestors other than
the first requestor, even though said one or more requestors have not
aggregated their corresponding threshold number of requests,” as recited in
claim 1 and similarly recited in claims 8 and 15 (App. Br. 6–13;
Reply Br. 3–9). Specifically Appellants argue Wasserman’s queued pixel/
display data does not disclose aggregated requests, as recited in claim 1
(App. Br. 7–8; Reply Br. 3–4); and further, Wasserman does not disclose:
in response to determining a first requestor of the plurality of
requestors has reached its corresponding threshold number of
requests: . . . issue pending requests of the first requestors; and
issue pending requests of one or more requestors of the plurality
of requestors other than the first requestor, even though said one
or more requestors have not aggregated their corresponding
threshold number of requests,
as recited in claim 1 (App. Br. 10–11; Reply Br. 4–9).
First, Appellants contend Wasserman discloses a queue used to store
pixel data or display output data; however, “the queued pixel/display data of
Wasserman is not equivalent to the aggregated requests as recited”
(App. Br. 7; Reply Br. 4).
We are persuaded by Appellants’ argument (App. Br. 7–8;
Reply Br. 3–4) and in particular, find the Examiner has not sufficiently
explained how Wasserman’s “queued pixel/display data” discloses the
aggregated “requests” as claimed.
Appeal 2018-002736
Application 14/262,298

4
The Examiner points to several descriptions in Wasserman including
Figures 7, 8, 12A, and B; and paragraphs 115–122 and 140–144 (Final Act.
3). The Examiner then finds Wasserman’s descriptions disclose “requests
for display information is asserted based on actual need which is dependent
upon reaching a certain queue threshold of request in the queue. When the
threshold is met there is an aggregation of requests in the queue” (id.). The
Examiner does not identify the particular description, or elements therein,
relied upon. Paragraph 115 of Wasserman describes:
[R]equests for display information are asserted by one or more
channels . . . In another embodiment, the channel may begin
asserting requests when the level of a display information queue
for that channel drops below a certain threshold. For example,
the channel may assert a request if the level of its display output
queue drops below half full
(Wasserman ¶ 115; see Final Act. 3; Ans. 3; see also App. Br. 5 (quoting
Wasserman ¶ 115)). Thus, the Examiner seems to find Wasserman’s
“channel” discloses the recited “requestor” and Wasserman’s “output data in
queue” describes the aggregated “a plurality of requests” as claimed.
In the Answer, the Examiner determines “the term ‘aggregated,’
which means to collect or gather[, ] does not exclude collecting a number of
requests that fall below a threshold” (Ans. 3). According to the Examiner,
the recited limitation “merely states that a number of requests must be
aggregated that meet a corresponding threshold number” (id.). The
Examiner, however, does not set forth with specificity where Wasserman
discloses “each requestor of the plurality of requestors has a corresponding
threshold number of a plurality of requests to be aggregated before
transmission of a request is permitted,” as recited in claim 1 and as
commensurately recited in claims 8 and 15. Rather, Wasserman discloses
Appeal 2018-002736
Application 14/262,298

5
“the channel may begin asserting requests when the level of a display
information queue for that channel drops below a certain threshold
(Wasserman ¶ 115). Absent any detailed explanation, we are left to
speculate as to what the Examiner is referring to when finding Wasserman
discloses “requests for display information is asserted based on actual need
which is dependent upon reaching a certain queue threshold of request in the
queue” as asserted by the Examiner (Final Act. 3). We will not speculate.
Appellants further contend Wasserman does not disclose “in response
to determining a first requestor of the plurality of requestors has reached its
corresponding threshold number of requests: . . . issue pending requests of
the first requestors; and issue pending requests of one or more requestors of
the plurality of requestors other than the first requestor, even though said one
or more requestors have not aggregated their corresponding threshold
number of requests” as recited in claim 1 (App. Br. 10–11; Reply Br. 4–9).
The Examiner finds:
Requests are forwarded by the arbiter to a frame buffer if it has
less than a particular threshold of data in its display queue
(needy). Further, the system of Wasserman et al. will try to avoid
accessing the same memory banks consecutively and will instead
forward a request from a different requestor targeting a different
memory bank even if it isn’t needy (below threshold)
(Final Act. 3).
According to Appellants, Wasserman describes “issuing a request for
data when an amount of pixel/display data in a queue falls below a threshold
level (i.e., based on need)” (App. Br. 11; Reply Br. 4). In the Answer, the
Examiner finds “the arbiter can attempt to avoid accessing the same memory
banks consecutively instead of only using neediness as a parameter and
therefore requestors can issue requests even if they are not considered needy
Appeal 2018-002736
Application 14/262,298

6
(meet the threshold)” (Ans. 4). The Examiner has not, however, set forth
with specificity, nor do we readily find, how Wasserman describes that “in
response to determining a first requestor of the plurality of requestors has
reached its corresponding threshold number of requests: . . . issue pending
requests . . .” Indeed, the Examiner indicates Wasserman discloses issuing a
request when the data in queue falls below a threshold number. The
Examiner has not sufficiently explained how Wasserman discloses that in
response to determining a first requestor of the plurality of requestors has
reached its corresponding threshold number of requests: . . . issuing pending
requests of the first requestor; and issuing pending requests of one or more
requestors of the plurality of requestors other than the first requestor, even
though said one or more requestors have not aggregated their corresponding
threshold number of requests (App. Br. 10–11; Reply Br. 4–9). In particular,
the Examiner has not sufficiently explained how the “arbiter” is able to
monitor the threshold number of requests of a particular requestor and other
requestors, and issue requests of the requestor that meets the threshold
number of requests and also issue requests of other requestors even when the
other requestors do not have threshold number of requests, as recited in
claim 1 and commensurately recited in claims 8 and 15.
Accordingly, we are persuaded the Examiner fails to show the
Wasserman discloses the limitations as recited in independent claim 1 and
commensurately recited independent claims 8 and 15, not separately argued.
Therefore, we do not sustain the rejection of claims 1, 8, and 15 under 35
U.S.C. § 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Wasserman.
Therefore, we are persuaded by Appellants that Wasserman fails to
anticipate independent claims 1, 8, and 15. The remaining claims depend
Appeal 2018-002736
Application 14/262,298

7
directly or indirectly from independent claims 1, 8, and 15; therefore, these
claims fall with their respective independent claims. Because we agree with
at least one of the arguments advanced by Appellants, we need not reach the
merits of Appellants’ other arguments (Ans. 3–5). As a result, we do not find
Wasserman discloses claims 1, 5–8, 12, 15, 19, and 20 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(a)(2).

DECISION
For the reasons above, we reverse the Examiner’s rejection of claims
1, 5–8, 12, 15, 19, and 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 102 as unpatentable over
Wasserman.
REVERSED