Chicago Mercantile Exchange Inc.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jun 16, 2020

2019002550 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 16, 2020)

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.
14/134,828 12/19/2013 Zachary Bonig 4672-13022AUS 5883
12684 7590 06/16/2020
Lempia Summerfield Katz LLC/CME
20 South Clark Street
Suite 600
Chicago, IL 60603
EXAMINER
GREGG, MARY M
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3697
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/16/2020 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-us@lsk-iplaw.com
mail@lsk-iplaw.com
pair_lsk@firsttofile.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte ZACHARY BONIG, HAIFENG ZHENG, DON MENDELSON,
MIKE DONAGHY, and AKRAPONG LIN
____________

Appeal 2019-002550
Application 14/134,828
Technology Center 3600
____________

Before NORMAN H. BEAMER, ADAM J. PYONIN, and GARTH D.
BAER, Administrative Patent Judges.

BAER, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2019-002550
Application 14/134,828

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
final rejection of claims 1–21, which are all pending claims. Appeal Br. 4.
We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.

BACKGROUND
A. The Invention
Appellant’s invention is directed to “efficient processing of a plurality
of electronic message packets communicated to an application via a network
from a plurality of message sources.” Abstract. Independent claim 1 is
representative and reproduced below, with emphasis added to disputed
elements:
1. A method for facilitation of efficient processing of
a plurality of electronic message packets communicated to
an application via a network from a plurality of message
sources using a communications protocol which organizes
received packets based on origin, the method comprising:
receiving, by a network interface coupled with the
network, each of the plurality of electronic message
packets from the network; and
storing, by a processor of the network interface,
upon receipt thereof by the network interface from the
network, each of the received electronic message packets
in a common buffer, in which all received packets are
stored, in an order of receipt with respect to others of the
received packets irrespective of which message source of

1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37
C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies Chicago Mercantile Exchange, Inc. as
the real party in interest. Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal 2019-002550
Application 14/134,828

3
the plurality of message sources each of the received
electronic message packets originated from; and
communicating the stored electronic message
packets to the application from the common buffer as
stored therein such that the application does not receive a
stored electronic message packet before the application
receives a previously received stored electronic message
packet.
Appeal Br. 9 (Claims Appendix).

B. The Rejections on Appeal
The Examiner rejects claims 1, 2, 4, and 7 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Pope (US 2012/0155256 A1; June 21, 2012) and Fraser
(US 4,499,576; Feb. 12, 1985). Final Act. 5.
The Examiner rejects claim 3 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable
over Pope, Fraser, and Rooney (US 2011/0145124 A1; June 16, 2011).
Final Act. 10.
The Examiner rejects claim 5 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable
over Pope, Fraser, and Ferguson (US 7,215,637 B1; May 8, 2007). Final
Act. 12.
The Examiner rejects claim 6 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable
over Pope, Fraser, Ferguson, and Short (US 5,633,865; May 27, 1997).
Final Act. 13.
The Examiner rejects claims 8, 9, 11, and 14 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Pope and Fraser. Final Act. 14.
The Examiner rejects claim 10 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable
over Pope, Fraser, and Rooney. Final Act. 20.
The Examiner rejects claim 12 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable
over Pope, Fraser, and Ferguson. Final Act. 21.
Appeal 2019-002550
Application 14/134,828

4
The Examiner rejects claim 13 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable
over Pope, Fraser, Ferguson, and Short. Final Act. 22.
The Examiner rejects claims 15, 16, 18, and 21 under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as unpatentable over Pope and Fraser. Final Act. 24.
The Examiner rejects claim 17 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable
over Pope, Fraser, and Rooney. Final Act. 30.
The Examiner rejects claim 19 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable
over Pope, Fraser, and Ferguson. Final Act. 31.
The Examiner rejects claim 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable
over Pope, Fraser, Ferguson, and Short. Final Act. 33.

ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellant’s
arguments. Arguments Appellant could have made but chose not to make
are waived. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv).

A. Obviousness Rejection of Claim 1
Appellant argues that “[t]he problems with the prior art is that the
prior art teaches multiple FIFO [first-in-first-out] queues which limits the
ability of the prior art to track order” and that
[b]y dividing the packets into multiple queues (FIFO or not)
both Pope and Fraser lose the ability to store the packets “in an
order of receipt with respect to others of the received packets
irrespective of which message source of the plurality of
message sources each of the received electronic message
packets originated from.” Neither Pope or Fraser can
distinguish whether a packet in queue A was received before a
packet in queue B. Pope and Fraser disclose first in first out, but
limited to the specific queues.
Appeal 2019-002550
Application 14/134,828

5
Reply Br. 3 (citing Pope ¶ 65; Fraser Abstract).
We are persuaded by Appellant. The Examiner finds, and we agree,
that “Pope makes clear that all the buffers share the same address space and
therefore, are a common memory.” Ans. 4 (citing Pope ¶¶ 53, 56). The
Examiner further finds, and we agree, that Pope teaches
[t]he memory manager defines virtual FIFO queues in common
memory 206 by storing at a descriptor table a representation of
the sequence of buffers that make up each queue. Each ingress
port of the NIC has at least one corresponding virtual FIFO
queue.

Final Act. 6 (citing Pope ¶ 65). Pope’s system requires that “[e]ach ingress
port of the NIC [network interface device] has at least one corresponding
virtual FIFO queue.” Independent claim 1 requires the network has “a
plurality of message sources,” which in turn requires that a system using
Pope’s teachings (and corresponding to claim 1) must have at least two
ingress ports and two virtual FIFO queues, corresponding to one virtual
FIFO queue for each of two message sources.
However, we agree with Appellant that Pope and Fraser teach
“multiple FIFO queues which limits the ability of the prior art to track
order.” Reply Br. 3. In Pope and Fraser, message receipt order is
maintained within the FIFO queues, but neither Pope nor Fraser teaches or
suggests that message receipt order is maintained for all messages.
Independent claim 1 requires both
(1) “all received packets are stored, in an order of receipt with respect to
others of the received packets irrespective of which message source of
the plurality of message sources each of the received electronic
message packets originated from”, and
Appeal 2019-002550
Application 14/134,828

6
(2) “communicating the stored electronic message packets to the
application from the common buffer as stored therein such that the
application does not receive a stored electronic message packet before
the application receives a previously received stored electronic
message packet.”
The Examiner has not shown how Pope and Fraser, when combined, teach
or suggest how packets are received by the application in this manner,
because neither Pope’s “priority level” (see Pope ¶ 68), nor Fraser’s
“identification number” (see Fraser 1:45–59) appears to contain information
regarding the timing of a message’s initial entrance into a queue.
Accordingly, we are constrained by the record to reverse the
Examiner’s rejection of independent claim 1, as well as independent claims
8 and 15 commensurate in scope, and all dependent claims.

CONCLUSION
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1, 2, 4,
7–9, 11,
14–16,
18, 21
103 Pope, Fraser 1, 2, 4, 7–9,
11, 14–16,
18, 21
3, 10, 17 103 Pope, Fraser,
Rooney
3, 10, 17
5, 12, 19 103 Pope, Fraser,
Ferguson
5, 12, 19
6, 13, 20 103 Pope, Fraser,
Ferguson, Short
6, 13, 20
Appeal 2019-002550
Application 14/134,828

7

REVERSED

Overall
Outcome
1–21