Ex Parte Bolding et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jan 23, 2014

11586928 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 23, 2014)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte JOE D. BOLDING, DANIEL G. TORMEY, and
RON GILBERT JR.
____________

Appeal 2011-006834
Application 11/586,9281
Technology Center 2100
____________

Before JEFFREY S. SMITH, JOHN A. EVANS, and
CATHERINE SHIANG, Administrative Patent Judges.

EVANS, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) involving claims to a
method and apparatus for controlling multiple simulations. The Examiner
has rejected the claims as obvious. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b).
We reverse.
Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellants and the Examiner,

1 The Real Party in Interest is Hewlett-Packard Development Company, LP.

Appeal 2011-006834
Application 11/586,928

2
we refer to the Appeal Brief (filed Sept. 21, 2010), the Answer (mailed Oct.
28, 2010), and the Reply Brief (filed Dec. 28, 2010).

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The claims relate to methods, apparatus, and systems for controlling
multiple simulations. One embodiment is a method that includes executing
plural architectural simulators being interconnected to form a platform for
hardware simulation; placing at least one of the plural architectural
simulators into a pause state; and automatically minimizing windows
associated with the at least one of the plural architectural simulators. (See
Abstract).
Claims 1-7 and 22-25 are on appeal. Claims 1 and 21 are
independent.2 An understanding of the invention can be derived from a
reading of exemplary Claim 1, which is reproduced below with disputed
limitations italicized:
1. A method of software execution, comprising:
executing a hardware simulation process that
simultaneously executes plural different simulation processes
with each simulation process having plural xterm windows;
receiving a selection of one of the simulation processes;
and
automatically reducing or hiding xterm windows not
associated with the one of the simulation processes in response
to receiving the selection of one of the simulation processes.

2 Claims 8-22 are withdrawn. (See Final Action mailed 4/21/2010).
Appellants traverse claims 1-7 and 22-25. (See App. Br. 8).
Appeal 2011-006834
Application 11/586,928

3
To reject the claims, the Examiner relies upon:
1. Chris Browy and Usman Ahmad, A Guided Tour of SimCluster,
Avery Design Systems Application Note #4, June 2004
(http://www.avery-
design.info/files/docs/simcluster_sep05_appnotes.pdf); and
2. Patrick Bohrer, et al., Mambo – A Full System Simulator for the
PowerPC Architecture, 31(4) SIGMETRICS Performance Evaluation
Review 8-12 (2004);

In support of the taking of Official Notice, the Examiner applies the
following references:
Chaudri US 7,343,566 B1 July 10, 2002
Kao US 6,462,757 B1 issued Oct. 8, 2002
Frank US 2002/0171682 A1 pub. Nov. 21, 2002
Lupu US 2004/0100480 A1 pub. May 27, 2004
Stevens US 2006/0168538 A1 filed Jan. 21, 2005
McArdle US 2007/0180398 A1 filed Jan. 30, 2006

1. Ivo Bolsens, Hugo J. De Man, Bill Lin, Karl Van Rompaey, Steven
Vercauteren, And Diederik Verkest, Hardware/Software Co-Design of
Digital Telecommunication Systems, 85(3) Proc. IEEE 391-418
(March 1997);
Appeal 2011-006834
Application 11/586,928

4
2. Thomas Zander, Bur#14614: iconify all (email), Nov. 4, 2000
(retrieved on 3/5/2010 from http://markmai1.org/message/
himzuvbjfzjxvxgv#query:%22iconify%20a11%20other%22+
page:1+mid:himzuvbjfzjxvxgv+state:resu1ts);
3. Anonymous, Iconify All Other Windows, 1992, retrieved on 3/5/2010
from http://ftp.andrew.cmu.edu/pub/AUIS/auis-
6.3/atk/textaux/gemacscp.help, 5 pages;
4. Anonymous, Minimize all other applications", 2003, retrieved from
MrExcel.com on March 5, 2010;
5. Eitan Schichmanter, "Minimize All", 2004, retrieved from
http://www.mailarchive.com/perl-win32-
admin@listserv.activestate.com/msg05124.html on March 5, 2010.

The claims stand rejected as follows3:
1. Claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 21, 23, 24, and 25 are rejected under 35 USC. §
103(a) as obvious over Browy in view of Official Notice. (Ans. 5-19).
2. Claims 3 and 22 are rejected under 35 USC. § 103(a) as obvious over
Browy, Bohrer, and Official Notice. (Ans. 19-22).
Claims 1, 2, and 4-7
Issues and Analysis

3 Based on Appellants’ arguments in the Appeal Brief, we will decide the
appeal on the basis of claims as set forth below. See 37 C.F.R. §
41.37(c)(1)(vii).
Appeal 2011-006834
Application 11/586,928

5
Receiving a selection of one of the simulation processes.
Appellants contend that Browy does not teach or suggest as to how
one of the simulation processes might be selected. (App. Br. 11). Appellants
argue that the Examiner takes Official Notice (based on Chaudri and Frank)
that it is old and well known at the time of the invention in the art of
windows management to receive a selection of a window, Appellants
contend that Claim 1 recites selecting a “simulation process,” but that
Chaudri teaches bringing a selected window (as opposed to “simulation
process”) to the top of a window hierarchy. (App. Br. 12). Appellants
contend that Frank teaches bringing a selected window to the top of a
window hierarchy. Frank, however, does not teach or suggest receiving a
selection of a simulation process (which is different than receiving a
selection of a window). (App. Br. 13).
The Examiner finds that Browy teaches a simulation process, but that
Official Notice is relied upon to teach receiving a selection of a process
because it was common knowledge in the art to select a process. (Ans. 24-
25) (citing Frank, ¶ 29).
Appellants acknowledge the Examiner’s finding that Browy does not
teach receiving a selection of simulation process, but traverse the
Examiner’s taking of “Official Notice,” supported by Frank (¶ 0029), to
teach “receiving a selection of a process.” Appellants contend that Frank (¶
0029) teaches that a user places a cursor on a window and clicks a mouse to
operate on this window and further teaches that users were previously unable
Appeal 2011-006834
Application 11/586,928

6
to view data obscured by overlapping windows. In Appellants’ view, these
teachings fail to complete the deficiency of Browy because nowhere does
this paragraph teach or suggest that it was common knowledge or well-
known to receive a selection of a simulation process, as recited in claim 1.
The user in Frank (¶ 0029) is selecting a window with a cursor, not selecting
a simulation process. (Reply Br. 2).
We agree with Appellants that the claims do not stand rejected as
obvious over Browy in view of Frank.4 Rather, the claims were rejected as
obvious over Browy with Frank cited to support a taking of Official Notice.
(See Reply Br. 2; Ans. 5, 6). Official Notice is appropriate where the facts
in question are “capable of such instant and unquestionable demonstration as
to defy dispute” (In re Ahlert, 424 F.2d 1088, 1091 (CCPA 1970)) (citing In
re Knapp Monarch Co., 296 F.2d 230 (CCPA 1961)). Appellants contend
that Frank (¶ 0029) does not teach or suggest “that it was common
knowledge or well-known to receive a selection of a simulation process”
(Reply Br. 2). We agree because our reading of Frank (¶ 0029) does not

4 The Examiner’s Answer finds that: “[o]ne cannot show nonobviousness by
attacking references individually where the rejections are based on
combinations of References.” (Ans. 25). We agree with Appellants (Reply
Br. 4) that this argument is misplaced because Claims 1, 2, 4-7, 21, and 23-
25) were not rejected over the combined teachings of plural references.
Rather, the claims stand rejected over a single reference (Browy). (See Ans.
5). Appellants argue they have not addressed whether the claims are
obvious over Browy in view of Frank and/or Chaudhri because these
rejections were not applied. (Reply Br. 4).

Appeal 2011-006834
Application 11/586,928

7
suggest that Frank relates to “receiving a selection of one of the simulation
processes,” as recited in Claim 1. Rather, Frank relates to selecting a
window: “[i]n traditional window based display systems, a user operating on
data disposed in window 100 would have to select a window to operate
upon.” (Frank, ¶ 0029). We do not find that Frank’s teachings relating to
“receiving a selection of a simulation process” are “capable of such instant
and unquestionable demonstration as to defy dispute.” (In re Ahlert, at
1091). The courts “reject the notion that judicial or administrative notice
may be taken of the state of the art. The facts constituting the state of the art
are normally subject to the possibility of rational disagreement among
reasonable men and are not amenable to the taking of such notice.” (In re
Eynde, 480 F.2d 1364, 1370 (CCPA 1961)).
In view of the foregoing, we decline to sustain the rejection of Claims
1, 2, and 4-7.

Claims 21 and 23-25
ISSUES AND ANALYSIS
Appellants select Claim 21 for discussion. (App. Br. 15). Appellants
contend that Claim 21 recites selecting to work with the first simulation
process, and then automatically minimizing display of the xterm window of
the second simulation process upon selecting to work with the first
simulation process. Appellants further contend that the Examiner admits
that Browy does not teach a significant portion of these recitations but relies
Appeal 2011-006834
Application 11/586,928

8
on official notice. Appellants contend that the references cited for official
notice are not directed to simulation processes. (App. Br. 15-16).
The Examiner’s Answer finds that Appellants do not dispute the
premise of the Official Notice that “it was old and well known at the time of
the invention in the art of windows management to select a window to work
in, and then automatically minimizing display of windows not associated
with the selected window.” (Ans. 39-40).
As discussed above, the claims recite managing the display of
windows based on the selection of a process. The Examiner finds that
Browy teaches a simulation process, but that Official Notice is relied upon to
teach receiving a selection of a process. (Ans. 24-25). As discussed above,
the Examiner does not find that selection of a process (as opposed to
selection of a window) was commonly-known in the art. We therefore, do
not sustain the rejection of Claims 21 and 23-25.

Claims 3 and 22
ISSUE AND ANALYSIS
Appellants contend that Bohrer does not remedy the deficiencies of
Browy as discussed above in regards to Claim 1. (App. Br. 16-17).
The Examiner finds that “Official Notice teaches or fairly suggests all
the limitations of claim 1.” (Ans. 43).
Appeal 2011-006834
Application 11/586,928

9
As discussed above, we agree with Appellants that all the limitations
of Claim 1 are not met by the combination of Browy and Official Notice.
Therefore, we decline to sustain the rejection of Claims 3 and 22.

ORDER
The rejection of claims 1-7 and 21-25 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is
REVERSED.

REVERSED

ke