Ex Parte Blumrich et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 11, 2013

11768800 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 11, 2013)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte MATTHIAS A. BLUMRICH, DONG CHEN,
ALAN G. GARA, MARK E. GIAMPAPA,
PHILIP HEIDELBERGER, MARTIN OHMACHT,
VALENTINA SALAPURA, and PAVLOS VRANAS
____________

Appeal 2011-007199
Application 11/768,800
Technology Center 2100
____________

Before ST. JOHN COURTENAY III, THU A. DANG, and
CARL W. WHITEHEAD, JR., Administrative Patent Judges.

COURTENAY, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal 2011-007199
Application 11/768,800

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a rejection of claims
1-13 and 16-23. Claims 14 and 15 were canceled during prosecution. We
have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.

INVENTION
This invention relates to efficiently tracking queue entries relative to a
timestamp. (Spec. 1). Claim 1, reproduced below, is representative of the
claimed subject matter:
1. An apparatus for tracking event signals transmitted in a
multiprocessor system having a plurality of processor devices,
said apparatus comprising:
[a] a queue structure for storing said event signals
transmitted in said system;
[b] a logic device associated with said queue structure for
controlling enqueuing and dequeuing of received said event
signals at said structure; and,
[c] counting mechanism for tracking a number of event
signals remaining enqueued in said queue structure and
dequeued since receipt of a timestamp signal, and,
[d] said counting mechanism generating an output signal
indicating that all of the event signals present in the queue
structure at the time of receipt of said timestamp signal have
been dequeued.

REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner as evidence in rejecting the
claims on appeal is:
Cypher US 2004/0024925 A1 Feb. 5, 2004
Appeal 2011-007199
Application 11/768,800

3
REJECTIONS
The Examiner made the following rejections:
R1. Claims 1, 2, 4-6, 8, 9, 11, 12, 18, 20, and 22 are rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Cypher. (Ans. 4).
R2. Claims 3, 13, 16, 17, 19, 21, and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Cypher. (Ans. 11).
R3. Claims 7 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Cypher and Applicant’s admitted prior art (Description of
the prior art), herein referred to as AAPA. (Ans. 24).

ANALYSIS
R1.
Regarding the claim 1 limitations [c] and [d], Appellants contend:
[T]he Examiner incorrectly understands Cypher by stating the
latest timestamp is equal to the sum of the value in counter 762
and the number of packets still enqueued in queue 720C.
Paragraph [0087] of Cypher describes, “When processing
subsystem 142 sends a data packet, it may attach a timestamp
equal to the current value of the counter 762.” Thus, the
latest timestamp of the latest data packet is equal to the value
of the counter when the latest data packet is sent from the
processing subsystem. As described in paragraph [0087] of
Cypher, regardless of whether the counter 762 counts the
number of address packets received in address-in queue 720C
or counts the number of address packets popped from the
address-in queue 720C, the timestamp of a data packet is the
value of the counter 762 when the data packet is sent from the
processing subsystem. Therefore, the Examiner’s statement
that the latest timestamp is equal to the sum of the value in
counter 762 and the number of packets still enqueued in queue
720C proves that Examiner misunderstands Cypher and
mistakenly rejects independent claims.
Appeal 2011-007199
Application 11/768,800

4
(Reply Br. 5).
Appellants’ contentions are persuasive. In making the rejection of
claim 1 limitations [c] and [d], the Examiner finds:
Cypher ’925 further recites, “When data packets and their
corresponding timestamps arrive at processing subsystem 142,
they may be added to data-in queue 720B” in lines 1-3 of
paragraph 0088. Thus, the latest timestamp will equate to the
number of packets that were pushed into queue 720B.
(Ans. 29) (emphasis added). However, the Examiner’s cited paragraph
[0088] of Cypher does not support the Examiner’s finding that the “latest
timestamp [of a data packet arriving at an intaking processing subsystem]
will equate to the number of packets that were pushed into queue 720B [of
the intaking processing subsystem].” (Ans. 29).
Moreover, as Appellants contend, Cypher ¶ [0087] discloses the
TimeStamp of an incoming data packet is the value of the counter 762 of the
processing subsystem 142 that sends a data packet. (Reply Br. 4).
Therefore, the Examiner has not established Cypher discloses “the latest
timestamp will equate to the number of packets that were pushed into queue
720B,” as purportedly found by the Examiner regarding claim 1 limitations
[c] and [d]. (Ans. 29).
For essentially the same reasons advanced by Appellants, on this
record, we are persuaded of Examiner error. Accordingly, we reverse the
anticipation rejection R1 of independent claim 1 and of independent claim
18, which recites commensurate limitations. We also reverse the rejection
R1 of claims 2, 4-6, 8, 9, 11, 12, 20, and 22, which depend from independent
claims 1 and 18.

Appeal 2011-007199
Application 11/768,800

5
R2 AND R3
Regarding the obviousness rejections R2 and R3, the Examiner fails
to establish the additionally cited references cure the deficiencies discussed
above regarding independent claim 16 (rejection R2), and independent
claims 1 and 18 (rejection R1). Accordingly, we reverse the Examiner’s
rejection R2 of independent claim 16. We also reverse the rejections R2 of
claims 3, 13, 17, 19, 21, and 23 and rejection R3 of claims 7 and 10, which
depend from independent claims 1, 16, and 18.

DECISION
We reverse the Examiner’s rejection R1 of claims 1, 2, 4-6, 8, 9, 11,
12, 18, 20, and 22 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b).
We reverse the Examiner’s rejection R2 of claims 3, 13, 16, 17, 19,
21, and 23 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
We reverse the Examiner’s rejection R3 of claims 7 and 10 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a).

REVERSED

msc