Ex Parte Babbellapati

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 28, 2018

14207695 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 28, 2018)

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.
14/207,695 03/13/2014 Syam Krishna Babbellapati KRAUP171US 3395
18052 7590
Eschweiler & Potashnik, LLC
Rosetta Center
629 Euclid Ave., Suite 1000
Cleveland, OH 44114
EXAMINER
YEUNG, MANG HANG
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2463
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/02/2018 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):
docketing @ eschweilerlaw. com
inteldocs_docketing @ cpaglobal. com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte SYAM KRISHNA BABBELLAPATI
Appeal 2017-007349
Application 14/207,6951
Technology Center 2400
Before CHARLES J. BOUDREAU, NABEEL U. KHAN, and
PHILLIP A. BENNETT, Administrative Patent Judges.
BENNETT, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s final
rejection of claims 1-20, which constitute all the claims pending in this
application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
1 Appellant’s Brief (“App. Br.”) identifies Lantiq Beteiligungs-GmbH &
Co. KG. as the real party in interest. App. Br. 1.
Appeal 2017-007349
Application 14/207,695
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims are directed to a flow control between a main processor
and an auxiliary processor such that when the main processor is under a
heavy load, low priority data pre-processed by the auxiliary processor may
be discarded to prevent excess loading on the main processor. Spec. 16-
20. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. An apparatus, comprising:
an auxiliary processing device configured to receive data
to be processed,
a main processing device, and
a feedback path from the main processing device to the
auxiliary processing device,
the main processing device being configured to inform the
auxiliary processing device about a load of the main processing
device via the feedback path,
wherein the auxiliary processing device is configured to
selectively discard received data to be processed by the main
processing device based on the load of the main processing
device and a priority of the data, and to process data not needing
processing by the main processing device and outputting it as
processed data.
App. Br. 14 (Claims Appendix).
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Morein et al. (“Morein”)
Tuck, III et al. (“Tuck”)
Ikoma et al. (“Ikoma”)
Assia et al. (“Assia”)
US 6,473,086 B1
US 2003/0039258 Al
US 2006/0067231 Al
US 2008/0049794 Al
Oct. 29, 2002
Feb. 27, 2003
Mar. 30, 2006
Feb. 28, 2008
2
Appeal 2017-007349
Application 14/207,695
REJECTIONS
Claims 1-7 and 15-20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Ikoma and Morein. Final Act. 3-10.
Claims 8-12 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Ikoma and Assia. Final Act. 10-15.
Claims 13-14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Ikoma, Assia, and Tuck. Final Act. 15-17.
ISSUES
First Issue: Has the Examiner erred in finding Ikoma teaches or
suggests “selectively discarding] received data to be processed by the main
processing device based on the load of the main processing device and a
priority of data,” as recited in independent claim 1?
Second Issue: Has the Examiner erred in finding Ikoma and Morein
are properly combinable?
Third Issue: Has the Examiner erred in finding Ikoma and Assia teach
or suggest a data processing engine “performing a cyclic redundancy check
on the received data units,” as recited in independent claim 8?
Fourth Issue: Has the Examiner erred in finding Ikoma teaches or
suggests the auxiliary processing device “configured to forward pre-
processed data to the main processing device based on the priority and the
load,” as recited in dependent claim 2?
Fifth Issue: Has the Examiner erred in finding Ikoma teaches or
suggests “a classification engine to assign a priority to received data,” as
recited in dependent claim 5?
3
Appeal 2017-007349
Application 14/207,695
Sixth Issue: Has the Examiner erred in finding Ikoma teaches or
suggests “auxiliary processing device is configured to discard data of a low
priority when a load of the main processing device is high,” as recited in
dependent claim 7?
ANALYSIS
First Issue—Based on “a priority of the data ”
In rejecting claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a), the Examiner finds
Ikoma and Morein teach or suggest all of the recited claim limitations.
Relevant to this issue, the Examiner finds Ikoma teaches the limitation
“wherein the auxiliary processing device is configured to selectively discard
received data to be processed by the main processing device based on the
load of the main processing device and a priority of the data.” Final Act. 3-
4 (citing Ikoma ^ 232); Ans. 3-5 (citing Ikoma 113, 238, 252, 256,
Figs. 11, 12, 15). The Examiner finds Ikoma teaches an auxiliary processing
device having load detection section 620 that detects a load on processor 4
and outputs the result to a filter rule setting portion 642. Ans. 4. The
Examiner additionally finds Ikoma’s filter rule section 620 uses filtering
rules to discard certain types of packets when processor 4 is in an overload
state. Ans. 4. The Examiner explains that those packets which, according to
the filtering rules, are discarded, have a lower priority. Ans. 4-5.
Appellant contends Ikoma is deficient because it does not disclose
selectively discarding based on “a priority of data.” App. Br. 5-6. More
specifically, Appellant argues the decision to discard a packet in an overload
state is not based “on a priority of the data” because Ikoma teaches only that
the combination of the destination address and a protocol value of the packet
4
Appeal 2017-007349
Application 14/207,695
is used to ascertain the discard/pass instruction. App. Br. 6. According to
Appellant, “the discard/pass criteria of Ikoma et al. is based on an
occurrence percentage of that type of data packet and not a priority of the
data itself.” App. Br. 6 (citing Ikoma ^ 169, emphasis omitted).
We are not persuaded by Appellant’s argument. Ikoma utilizes a set
of discarding rules provided by a discard filter to determine whether to
discard or output a reception packet to the main processor. Ikoma 232-
238. When a packets arrive during an overload state, Ikoma determines
whether they match predefined filter rules, and discards those that match.
Ikoma Tflj 252-256. We agree with the Examiner that this determination
amounts to assigning a priority to the packets within the meaning of
Appellant’s claims. Appellant argues Ikoma’s filtering process does not
teach or suggest selectively discarding based on “a priority of the data.”
App. Br. 6. The problem with Appellant’s argument is that relies on an
unduly narrow characterization of what constitutes a “priority.” Appellant
argues “[njeither the destination address nor the protocol (e.g., IPv4, IPv6,
etc.) reflect a priority of the payload data within the reception packet.” Id.
(emphasis omitted). The claims do not require, however, that the “priority”
be the priority of the “payload data within the reception packet.” Rather, the
claims merely recite that the discarding be based on “priority of the data” in
a more general sense.
A dictionary definition of “priority” defines the term as “the fact or
condition of being regarded or treated as more important.” Priority, New
Oxford American Dictionary (3d. ed. 2010). By determining that certain
packets are outside the scope of the filtering rules, they are “treated as more
important” than those that that match the filtering rules and are consequently
5
Appeal 2017-007349
Application 14/207,695
discarded. As such, the packets are “selectively discarded” based on the
“priority of the data.” Moreover, the mere fact that data is not randomly
discarded in Ikoma at least suggests that the data is prioritized in some
fashion. Appellant’s claims do not specify the basis of the prioritization;
they require only that data be prioritized in making the discard/pass decision.
We agree with the Examiner that Ikoma satisfies this requirement.
Second Issue—Combination of Ikoma and Morein
As noted above, the Examiner relies on Ikoma and Morein in
concluding claims 1-7 and 15-20 would have been obvious. With respect to
independent claims 1 and 15, the Examiner relies primarily on Ikoma,
finding it teaches all limitations except “process[ing] data not needing
processing by the main processing device and outputting it as processed
data.” Final Act. 4. To cure this deficiency, the Examiner cites Morein,
finding it teaches this limitation because it discloses the use of a second
processor that actively performs other functions and is used only when the
primary processor is overloaded. Final Act. 5 (citing Morein col. 5,11. 49-
52). The Examiner finds Ikoma and Morein are analogous art “because they
are in the same field of endeavor of network communication.” Id. The
Examiner further finds a person of ordinarily skill in the art would have
sought to improve Ikoma by adding a second processor which processes data
not needing processing by the primary processor, as taught by Morein,
because doing so would allow them “to utilize the second processor as a
reserve processor when the primary processor 110 becomes overloaded.” Id.
(citing Morein col. 5,11. 49-52).
Appellant argues the combination is improper because the references
are not analogous art. More specifically, Appellant argues Ikoma and
6
Appeal 2017-007349
Application 14/207,695
Morein are not analogous art because Morein “is completely unrelated to
network communication.” App. Br. 10 (emphasis omitted). Appellant
further contends Ikoma and Morein are directed to different problems—
Ikoma to selective discarding of reception packets and Morein to parallel
processing in high speed graphics. App. Br. 10. We disagree.
Prior art is analogous where either (1) the art is from the same field of
endeavor, regardless of the problem addressed, or (2) even if the reference is
not within the same field of endeavor, the reference still is reasonably
pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor is involved. In re
Ethicon, Inc., 844 F.3d 1344, 1349 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (internal citations and
quotations omitted). Appellant does not contend Ikoma is not analogous to
the claimed invention. Rather, Appellant appears to argue Ikoma and
Morein are not in same field of endeavor. The test, however, requires that
we compare each reference to the claimed invention, and not to the other
reference as Appellant has done here. Appellant does not dispute that Ikoma
is from the same field as the claimed invention. See App Br. 10 (“While
Ikoma indeed relates to network communication . . . .”). Therefore, the issue
turns on whether Morein is in the same field as the claimed invention, or if
not, whether it is reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the
inventors.2 We agree with the Examiner that Morein is at least reasonably
pertinent to the problems faced by the inventor because it relates to “load
control/sharing of a processing unit.” Ans. 9. The invention is concerned
with reducing latency and delays in overload situations involving processed
2 Appellants contend Morein is not reasonably pertinent to Ikoma because it
bears no similarity to the problem faced by Ikoma. App. Br. 10. As noted
above, this is not the correct comparison to make because it does not
compare the problem solved by Morein to that faced by the inventors.
7
Appeal 2017-007349
Application 14/207,695
data. Spec. 1, 16. We agree with the Examiner (Ans. 9-10) that a person
of ordinary skill in the art, concerned with reducing latency and delay due to
processor overload, would find useful Morein’s teachings regarding the use
of reserve processors in overload situations (see Morein col. 5,11. 45-52)
and would consider those teachings to be at least reasonably pertinent to the
problem. Accordingly, we are not persuaded Ikoma and Morein are
improperly combined.
Third Issue—Independent Claim 8
The Examiner rejects independent claim 8 as unpatentable over Ikoma
in view of Assia. Final Act. 10-12. As with the other independent claims,
the Examiner relies primarily on Ikoma, finding it teaches all but the
limitation of “wherein the data processing engine is configured to perform a
cyclic redundancy check on the received data unit.” Final Act. 12. The
Examiner relies on Assia to supply this limitation, finding it teaches
performing cyclical redundancy checks on received frames. Final Act. 12
(citing Assia ^ 88). The Examiner concludes it would have been obvious to
incorporate Assia’s cyclic redundancy check into Ikoma’s system, finding
that an ordinarily skilled artisan would have been motivated to do so in order
to detect errors in received data. Id.
Appellant argues the rejection is in error because Assia teaches only
“performing a cyclic redundancy check in a main processor (i.e., the CPU),
and not in a data unit processing engine as recited in claim 8.” App. Br. 12
(emphasis omitted). According to Appellant, even if Assia’s cyclic
redundancy check were applied to Ikoma’s system, it “would result in a
device where the CRC is performed in processor 4 of Ikoma, and not in
8
Appeal 2017-007349
Application 14/207,695
packet reception control device 100.” Id. We are not persuaded by this
argument.
Appellant’s argument attacks the references singly, when the rejection
made by the Examiner is based on the combined teachings of Ikoma and
Assia. As explained by the Examiner, Assia is relied upon only to show that
it was known to perform error checking, including cyclic redundancy
checks, on received data frames. The Examiner does not rely on Assia to
supply the recited “data processing engine,” but instead relies on Ikoma for
that teaching. Final Act. 10 (citing Ikoma 232-234 for “a data unit
processing engine to receive incoming data units”). Moreover, we agree
with the Examiner that “Assia does not explicitly limit the cyclic redundancy
check function can only be performed by a main processor” (Ans. 11) and
that an ordinarily skilled artisan would have appreciated that Assia’s error
checking could be incorporated into processing units other than the main
CPU. Accordingly, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in rejecting
claim 8.
Fourth Issue—Dependent Claim 2
Dependent claim 2 recites the limitation “wherein the auxiliary
processing device is further configured to forward pre-processed data to the
main processing device based on the priority and the load.” App. Br. 14
(Claims Appendix). In rejecting the claim over Ikoma and Morein, the
Examiner finds Ikoma teaches this limitation. Final Act. 5 (citing Ikoma
232-233). More specifically, the Examiner finds the packet reception
control device described in connection with Figure 11 forwards pre-
processed data because it processes reception packets to make a discard/pass
determination, and because those packets receiving a pass determination are
9
Appeal 2017-007349
Application 14/207,695
forwarded to the memory 8 and then to processor 4. Final Act. 5-6 (citing
Fig. 11 and HU 232-238).
Appellant contends the Examiner has erred because “no pre­
processing of the reception packets is performed by the packet transfer
section 660, and thus none of the data received by the main processor 4 is
pre-processed data as claimed.” App. Br. 7 (emphasis omitted).
We are not persuaded by Appellant’s argument because it is premised
on an overly narrow interpretation of “pre-processed data.” Appellant’s
Specification describes several different examples of “pre-processing” data.
One specifically identified example is the pre-processing via “header
extraction.” Spec. H 22 (“Such limited processing may for example
comprise header extraction.”). Ikoma also teaches header extraction
performed by the packet reception control device prior to making a
pass/discard determination. Ikoma HH 233-234 (“the reception packet
transfer section 660 retrieves at least the header of each reception packet”).
As such, Ikoma teaches the recited “preprocessed data,” and we are not
persuaded the Examiner has erred in rejecting claim 2.
Fifth Issue—Claim 5
Claim 5 depends from claim 1 and recites the additional limitation
“wherein the auxiliary processing device comprises a classification engine to
assign a priority to received data.” App. Br. 14 (Claims Appendix). The
Examiner finds this limitation taught by Ikoma. Final Act. 7 (citing Ikoma
HU 232-238). The Examiner explains that discard/pass determination portion
656 depicted in Figure 11 of Ikoma compares received packets with the
filters stored in filter table 652. Ans. 7. As a result of this comparison, if a
10
Appeal 2017-007349
Application 14/207,695
match is not found, a packet is categorized/classified as high priority, and
allowed to pass to the main processor. Id.
Appellant contends Ikoma is deficient because “no classification
engine is taught or suggested that assigns a priority to the received data that
is then employed in determining whether such data should be discarded by
the auxiliary processor as claimed.” App. Br. 8. We disagree.
Appellant does not provide any definition for the recited
“classification engine.” The Specification references the phrase
“classification engine” only once, stating that “packet processing engine 21
may comprise a classification engine 24 to assign priorities to the incoming
packets di.” Spec. ^ 30. Based on this limited description, we conclude the
recited “classification engine” is broadly, but reasonably defined in terms of
the function it performs, namely any component or process that assigns
priorities to incoming packets. Applying that definition, we agree with the
Examiner that Ikoma’s discard/pass determination is encompassed by the
recited “classification engine” because, as we explained above, Ikoma
prioritizes the data in order to make the discard/pass decision in each
instance.
Sixth Issue—Claim 7
Claim 7 also depends from claim 1 and recites the additional
limitations:
wherein data is classified as having a priority of a group
comprising low priority and high priority, wherein load of the
main processing device is classified as having a load of a group
comprising a high load and a low load, the auxiliary processing
device is configured to discard data of a low priority when a load
of the main processing device is high.
11
Appeal 2017-007349
Application 14/207,695
App. Br. 15 (Claims Appendix). Appellant argues Ikoma does not teach any
auxiliary processing device that “is configured to discard data of a low
priority when a load of the main processing device is high,” as recited in
claim 7. Appellant sets forth the same argument as that presented in
connection with claim 1, which we addressed above. For the same reasons
explained above, we do not find this argument persuasive of Examiner error,
and we sustain the rejection of claim 7.
DECISION
Because Appellants have not demonstrated error in the Examiner’s
conclusion that claims 1-20 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a), we
affirm the Examiner’s rejections of claims 1-20.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(l)(iv).
AFFIRMED
12