Ex Parte Arimilli et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 19, 2014

12342691 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 19, 2014)

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.
12/342,691 12/23/2008 Ravi K. Arimilli AUS920080038US1 3113
50170 7590 08/20/2014
IBM CORP. (WIP)
c/o WALDER INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW, P.C.
17304 PRESTON ROAD
SUITE 200
DALLAS, TX 75252
EXAMINER
BELANI, KISHIN G
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2443
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/20/2014 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 RAVI K. ARIMILLI and PIYUSH CHAUDHARY
____________

Appeal 2012-004709
Application 12/342,691
Technology Center 2400
____________

Before JOSEPH F. RUGGIERO, CARLA M. KRIVAK, and
CATHERINE SHIANG, Administrative Patent Judges.

SHIANG, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s final
rejection of claims 1–5 and 7–20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b). We reverse.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The Examiner finds Morioka anticipates Appellants’ claimed
invention. See Ans. 4. We have reviewed Appellants’ arguments in the
Briefs, the Examiner’s rejection, and the Examiner’s response to Appellants’
arguments. We concur with Appellants’ conclusion that the Examiner erred
in finding Morioka (US 6,631,447 B1; issued Oct. 7, 2003) discloses
“wherein the call is a request to communicate with a second operating
Appeal 2012-004709
Application 12/342,691

2
system associated with a second application in the second data processing
system and wherein the second operating system allocates a shared buffer in
the second data processing system in response to the request without any
involvement by the second application,” as recited in independent claim 1.
1

The Examiner cites Morioka’s Figure 15 and columns 20–21 for the
disputed claim limitation (Ans. 22–23).
2

However, the Examiner does not adequately explain, and we do not
see, how the cited figure and columns disclose the disputed claim limitation.
For example, the cited figure and columns do not disclose any application,
which is required by the disputed claim limitation. The Examiner further
cites Morioka’s Figure 15 and column 20, line 56 through column 21, line 9,
and finds:
In a distributed data processing system such as the system
shown in Fig. 15 of Morioka et al., different application
programs execute in a processor 200 within cluster # 0, and
may generate requests to access memory in a different remote
cluster, such as cluster # 3. Such a request may be for updating
the content of a web page residing in the local memory 400 of
the remote cluster # 3, that another application program
executing in another processor 200 of cluster # 3 may store in a
database. This is disclosed in column 20, line 56 through
column 21, and line 9 in Morioka et al. reference[.]

1
Appellants raise additional arguments. Because the identified issue is
dispositive of the appeal, we do not reach the additional arguments.
2
The Examiner states Morioka’s Figures 1, 2, and 9, column 9, lines 8–23
and 46–52, and column16, lines 16–44 also “show and disclose these
details.” See Ans. 23–24. Again, the Examiner does not adequately explain,
and we do not see, how such figures and columns disclose the disputed
claim limitation.
Appeal 2012-004709
Application 12/342,691

3
Ans. 22. Again, contrary to the Examiner’s findings, we do not see such
disclosures in the cited Morioka figure and columns.
Because the Examiner fails to present sufficient evidence for the
rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 102, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection
of independent claim 1 and corresponding dependent claims 2–5 and 7–8.
For similar reasons, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of
independent claims 9 and 15, and corresponding dependent claims 10–14
and 16–20.
DECISION
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1–5 and 7–20 is reversed.

REVERSED
dw