Ex Parte 7,574,272 B2 et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardMay 1, 201590012284 (P.T.A.B. May. 1, 2015) Copy Citation 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. 90/012,284 05/07/2012 7,574,272 B2 9319S-003395/RXA 5302 34395 7590 05/04/2015 OLYMPIC PATENT WORKS PLLC P.O. BOX 4277 SEATTLE, WA 98104 EXAMINER CABRERA, ZOILA E ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3992 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 05/04/2015 PAPER 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. PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ________________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ________________ Ex parte HUNTS POINT VENTURES, INC. ________________ Appeal 2015-004410 Reexamination Control 90/012,284 Patent 7,574,272 B2 Technology Center 3900 ________________ Before JOHN A. JEFFERY, ANDREW J. DILLON, and JEREMY J. CURCURI, Administrative Patent Judges. CURCURI, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Patent 7,574,272 B2 (Gibbs) is under reexamination. Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. §§ 134(b) and 306 from the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1–10. App. Br. 2. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. §§ 134(b) and 306. Claims 1–10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Maeda (US 5,699,336; issued Dec. 16, 1997) and Okumura (JP 8-129454; published May 21, 1996). Fin. Rej. 2–7, Ans. 5–17. Claims 1–10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Maeda and Cunniff (US 5,842,015; issued Nov. 24, 1998). Fin. Rej. 7–13, Ans. 17–19. Appeal 2015-004410 Reexamination Control 90/012,284 Patent 7,574,272 B2 2 Claims 1–10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Maeda and Derr (US 6,453,375 B1; issued Sept. 17, 2002). Fin. Rej. 13–18, Ans. 19–21. Claims 1–10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Birrell (US 6,332,175 B1; issued Dec. 18, 2001) and Okumura. Fin. Rej. 18–23, Ans. 21–24. Claims 1–10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Birrell and Cunniff. Fin. Rej. 24–30, Ans. 24–25. Claims 1–10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Birrell and Derr. Fin. Rej. 30–35, Ans. 24–25. Claims 1, 2, and 7–10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Okumura and Akiyama (JP 6-318359; published Nov. 15, 1994). Fin. Rej. 36, Ans. 25–28. We affirm. STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellant’s invention relates to “optimizing data transfer from a spinning media in a portable audio device.” Gibbs, col. 1, ll. 18–19. Claim 1 is illustrative and reproduced below: 1. A portable media player comprising: a processor that executes commands; a random-access-memory component that stores compressed data in more than two different random-access-memory buffer areas, each random- access-memory buffer lockable and unlockable by the processor; Appeal 2015-004410 Reexamination Control 90/012,284 Patent 7,574,272 B2 3 a codec component, controlled by the processor, that reads compressed data from a locked random-access-memory buffer, the locked random-access-memory buffer selected from among the more than two different random-access-memory buffer areas and locked by the processor to prevent writing of the locked random-access-memory buffer by another component, and that generates a decompressed signal from the read compressed data that is rendered by a data-rendering component; a non-volatile, mass-storage component that stores compressed data and that writes compressed data, under control of the processor, to unlocked random-access-memory buffers; and a battery power supply to provide electrical power to the processor, random-access memory component, codec component, data-rendering component, and non-volatile, mass-storage component. ANALYSIS THE OBVIOUSNESS REJECTION OF CLAIMS 1–10 OVER BIRRELL AND CUNNIFF The Examiner finds Birrell and Cunniff teach all limitations of claims 1–10. Fin. Rej. 24–30 (incorporating by reference Request 92–113), Ans. 24–25. The Examiner reasons: Birrell discloses the limitations of claim 1 with the exception of locking/unlocking memory management. However, it would have been obvious to a person of the ordinary skill in the art to modify the system of Birrell with the teachings of Cunniff of using a “semaphore locking mechanism” for restricting access to an audio shared memory buffer for preventing overwriting from other applications programs or other components (Cunniff, Fig. 4, Col. 2, ll. 63-66) because it was a known technique that [] would yield predictable results. Appeal 2015-004410 Reexamination Control 90/012,284 Patent 7,574,272 B2 4 Ans. 29–30; see also Request 109–111. Appellant presents the following principal argument: i. “[I]n Maeda’s recording and reproducing apparatus, only the memory controller accesses the RAM buffer. For this reason, there is no need for the introduction of a locking mechanism, since the RAM buffer is not a shared resource.” App. Br. 20. “The Examiner has failed to even make a cursory attempt to justify introduction of locking in Maeda’s data- storage section.” App. Br. 21. See also Reply Br. 7–46. In response, the Examiner explains that the Examiner assumes Appellant refers to Birrell. Ans. 21. The Examiner further explains that Birrell needs some type of logic to prevent overwriting and Cunniff or Derr teach[es] a method of using a “semaphore locking mechanism” to prevent overwriting. Thus, by using the known method of “semaphore locking mechanism” of Cunniff or Derr in Birrell’s system it would yield predictable results such as to prevent overwriting. Ans. 24–25. We are not persuaded of error in the Examiner’s findings and conclusions that Birrell and Cunniff teach all limitations of claims 1–10. Birrell (Figure 1) discloses a portable audio player. Birrell (Abstract) discloses playing, with the audio player, data stored in RAM, and when appropriate, copying additional data from the disk drive to the RAM. Cunniff (col. 2, ll. 63–66) discloses the use of a semaphore mechanism. Appellant admits that a semaphore is a type of lock. See Reply Br. 20. We see no reason why Birrell would not have benefitted from the advantages of including Cunniff’s semaphore mechanism. Cunniff’s semaphore mechanism is readily applicable to Birrell because Birrell plays Appeal 2015-004410 Reexamination Control 90/012,284 Patent 7,574,272 B2 5 data stored in RAM and also copies data from the disk drive to the RAM. As such, modifying Birrell to include Cunniff’s semaphore mechanism would have been a predictable use of prior art elements according to their established functions — an obvious improvement. As the U.S. Supreme Court has explained: When a work is available in one field of endeavor, design incentives and other market forces can prompt variations of it, either in the same field or a different one. If a person of ordinary skill can implement a predictable variation, § 103 likely bars its patentability. For the same reason, if a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious unless its actual application is beyond his or her skill. Sakraida [v. Ag Pro, Inc., 425 U.S. 273 (1976)] and Anderson’s-Black Rock[, Inc. v. Pavement Salvage Co., 396 U.S. 57 (1969)] are illustrative — a court must ask whether the improvement is more than the predictable use of prior art elements according to their established functions. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 417 (2007). Regarding Appellant’s arguments that there is no need or justification for a locking mechanism in Maeda (and presumably also no need or justification for a locking mechanism in Birrell), the fact that a lockless implementation may be used in Birrell does not persuade us that an implementation using locks would not have been obvious because although the use of locks adds additional complexity and computations, we find that an implementation using locks is within the knowledge of a skilled artisan. See Cunniff, col. 2, ll. 63–66. Further, an implementation using locks does not destroy the principle of operation of Birrell. The question here is: in Birrell, where RAM is accessed to play audio data and RAM is also Appeal 2015-004410 Reexamination Control 90/012,284 Patent 7,574,272 B2 6 accessed to copy audio data from the disk drive to the RAM, would it have been obvious to a skilled artisan to use the known technique of locks as taught by Cunniff’s semaphores for synchronization? We conclude the answer is: Yes. Although Birrell could function without locks, we conclude that an implementation with locks would have been obvious. Weighing Appellant’s arguments against the Examiner’s findings, we conclude that Birrell and Cunniff collectively teach the limitations of claims 1–10, and the Examiner’s reasons to combine these teachings is supported by articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to justify the Examiner’s obviousness conclusion. We, therefore, sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1–10 as obvious over Birrell and Cunniff. THE REMAINING REJECTIONS Review of alternative prior art bases for rejection to claims, which have already been determined to be appropriately rejected over the prior art, is discretionary. See, e.g., In re Gleave, 560 F.3d 1331, 1338 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (not reaching rejections based on obviousness when claims already rejected as anticipated). We exercise our discretion and decline to reach the merits of the remaining rejections. ORDER The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1–10 is affirmed. Appeal 2015-004410 Reexamination Control 90/012,284 Patent 7,574,272 B2 7 Extensions of time for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal are governed by 37 C.F.R. § 1.550(c). See 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(f). AFFIRMED rwk PATENT OWNER: OLYMPIC PATENT WORKS PLLC P.O. BOX 4277 SEATTLE WA 98104 THIRD-PARTY REQUESTER: HARNESS, DICKEY & PIERCE, P.L.C. P.O. BOX 828 BLOOMFIELD HILLS, MI 48303 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation