90012284 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 15, 2015)

Ex Parte 7,574,272 B2 et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardSep 15, 2015

90012284 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 15, 2015)

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 09/16/2015 OLYMPIC PATENT WORKS PLLC P.O. BOX 4277 SEATTLE, WA 98104 EXAMINER CAMPBELL, JOSHUA D ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3992 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 09/16/2015 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 REQUEST FOR REHEARING Appellant has filed a paper under 37 C.F.R. § 41.52 requesting that we reconsider our Decision of May 4, 2015, wherein we affirmed the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1–10. We have reconsidered our Decision in light of Appellant’s comments in the request, and have found no errors. We, therefore, decline to change the Decision. Appellant’s request is denied. DISCUSSION First, Appellant essentially repeats the principal argument presented in the briefs that there is no need for introduction of a locking mechanism in Appeal 2015-004410 Reexamination Control 90/012,284 Patent 7,574,272 B2 2 Birrell because the RAM in Birrell is not a shared resource. See Req. Reh’g 2–15. For example, Appellant argues: i. “Birrell does not use or need locking. Birrell works without locking.” Req. Reh’g 2. ii. “There are no application programs mentioned or even remotely suggested in the Birrell reference.” Req. Reh’g 3. iii. “Birrell’s system absolutely depends on, and requires, the overwriting of the RAM buffer.” Req. Reh’g 5. iv. “The [] statement of rejection that the Appeal Board attributes to reasoning does not contain any type of articulated reasoning or rational underpinning.” Req. Reh’g 5. v. “There is no contention for [RAM memory] . . . among independently operating computational entities in Birrell, and thus absolutely no need even for locking access to the input and output pointers, let alone the audio-data-storing portions of the RAM memory.” Req. Reh’g 8. vi. “[N]either the Examiner nor the Appeal Board appears to understand this very basic concept of computer science that has been well known for over 50 years.” Req. Reh’g 8. vii. The Examiner’s further explanation in the Examiner’s Answer is conclusory. Req. Reh’g. 11–15. Regarding Appellant’s arguments i–vii, we do not find Appellant’s arguments convincing of any error in our original Decision. The Board did not misapprehend or overlook Appellant’s arguments. Nor did the Board have any difficulty understanding a semaphore as a synchronization tool for Appeal 2015-004410 Reexamination Control 90/012,284 Patent 7,574,272 B2 3 multiple entities; rather, the Board disagreed with Appellant and agreed with the Examiner’s conclusion that the claimed invention would have been obvious. Notably, in reaching its conclusion, the Board emphasized: “[A]lthough 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.” Dec. 5. Although Birrell works without locking, an implementation using locks is within the knowledge of a skilled artisan. When Birrell is modified to implement locks, the locks may be used as a synchronization tool for multiple entities, where an entity may overwrite RAM when the RAM is not locked by some other entity. We find these modifications to Birrell to be within the knowledge of a skilled artisan. See Decision 4–6; see also Cunniff, col. 2, ll. 63–66 (“The semaphore mechanism restricts access to the hardware to one application program at a time.”). That is, Birrell when combined with Cunniff using the routine skill of a skilled artisan uses a locking mechanism as a synchronization tool for multiple entities. See Final Act. 29–30; see Request 109–11; see Dec. 4–6; see Cunniff, col. 2, ll. 63–66. Next, Appellant argues that the Board’s Decision simply restates entirely conclusory statements made by the Examiner. See Req. Reh’g. 15– 16. We do not find this argument (See Req. Reh’g. 15–16) convincing of any error in our original Decision. Again, Birrell when combined with Cunniff using the routine skill of a skilled artisan uses a locking mechanism as a synchronization tool for multiple entities. See Final Act. 29–30; see Request 109–11; see Dec. 4–6; see Cunniff, col. 2, ll. 63–66. Again, the Appeal 2015-004410 Reexamination Control 90/012,284 Patent 7,574,272 B2 4 Board disagreed with Appellant and agreed with the Examiner’s conclusion that the claimed invention would have been obvious. Next, Appellant argues that the Board’s Decision misrepresented KSR. See Req. Reh’g 17. We do not find this argument (See Req. Reh’g. 17) convincing of any error in our original Decision. The Examiner does provide an articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning, and the Board provides additional explanation as to why the claimed invention would have been obvious. See Final Act. 29–30; see Request 109–11; see Dec. 4–6; see Cunniff, col. 2, ll. 63–66. Again, the Board disagreed with Appellant and agreed with the Examiner’s conclusion that the claimed invention would have been obvious. Finally, Appellant further argues that the Board’s Decision is, among other things, uninformed. See Req. Reh’g 18–19. Principally, Appellant argues: “In Birrell’s system, as in Maeda’s system, the RAM is accessed for writing and reading by a single processor running control routines. No race conditions can arise, in such cases. There is simply no need for locks. They provide no advantage. They are, however, attendant with many serious disadvantages.” Req. Reh’g 19. We do not find this argument (See Req. Reh’g. 18–19) convincing of any error in our original Decision. To the extent Appellant is correct that Birrell’s system uses a single processor running control routines, this still does not preclude the Examiner’s and Board’s conclusion that Birrell when combined with Cunniff using the routine skill of a skilled artisan uses a locking mechanism as a synchronization tool for multiple entities. See Final Act. 29–30; see Request 109–11; see Dec. 4–6; see Cunniff, col. 2, ll. 63–66. When Appeal 2015-004410 Reexamination Control 90/012,284 Patent 7,574,272 B2 5 modified in light of Cunniff, Birrell is no longer limited to a single entity accessing RAM. Again, the Board disagreed with Appellant and agreed with the Examiner’s conclusion that the claimed invention would have been obvious. Still further, Appellant argues that the Board’s Decision is wholly conclusory, and further presents similar arguments to those addressed above. See Req. Reh’g. 19–22. Again, we do not find these arguments (See Req. Reh’g. 19–22) convincing of any error in our original Decision. Again, the Board disagreed with Appellant and agreed with the Examiner’s conclusion that the claimed invention would have been obvious. CONCLUSION Based on the record before us now and in the original appeal, we have granted Appellant’s request to the extent that we have reconsidered our Decision, but we deny Appellant’s request to make any changes in our Decision. The request for rehearing is denied. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.550(c). See 37 C.F.R. § 41.52(b). REHEARING DENIED dw Appeal 2015-004410 Reexamination Control 90/012,284 Patent 7,574,272 B2 6 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