Ex Parte Brownell et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardMay 26, 201612481139 (P.T.A.B. May. 26, 2016) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR 12/481,139 0610912009 Paul V. Brownell 56436 7590 05/31/2016 Hewlett Packard Enterprise 3404 E. Harmony Road Mail Stop 79 Fort Collins, CO 80528 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 ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO. 82248125 4678 EXAMINER SHYU, JING-YIH ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2184 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 05/31/2016 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): hpe.ip.mail@hpe.com mkraft@hpe.com chris.mania@hpe.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte PAUL V. BROWNELL, BARRY S. BASILE, and DAVID L. MATTHEWS Appeal2014-007319 Application 12/481,139 Technology Center 2100 Before DEBRA K. STEPHENS, KARA L. SZPONDOWSKI, and SHARON PENICK, Administrative Patent Judges. SZPONDO\VSI<,J, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's Final Rejection of claims 1, 2, 4--14, and 16-18. The Examiner indicated claims 3, 15, 19, and 20 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. (Final Act. 1). We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM. Appeal2014-007319 Application 12/481,139 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants' invention is directed to a system and method for operating a communication link, in particular to avoid starvation of a lower priority packet stream. (Spec. i-fi-f l, 9). Claim 1, reproduced below with the disputed limitations in italics, is representative of the claimed subject matter: 1. A computing system, comprising: a first buffer configured to hold packets of a first packet type, and a second buffer configured to hold packets of a second packet type; a counter configured to track a delay-reference of packets held in the second buffer; and a controller configured to receive packets from a host and send packets of the first packet type to the first buff er and to send packets of the second packet type to the second buffer, the controller being further configured to stop receiving packets if the delay-reference meets or exceeds a specified threshold. REJECTIONS Claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 9-13, and 16-18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being obvious over the combination ofNaven et al. (US 2009/0086747 Al; published Apr. 2, 2009) ("Naven"), Almulhem et al. (US 6,574,230B1; issued June 3, 2003) ("Almulhem"), and of Ambe et al. (US 7,746,854 B2; issued June 29, 2010) ("Ambe"). Claim 14 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being obvious over the combination ofNaven, Almulhem, Ambe, and Davis (US 7,581,044 B 1; issued Aug. 25, 2009). 2 Appeal2014-007319 Application 12/481,139 Claims 6-8 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being obvious over the combination ofNaven, Almulhem, Ambe, and Divivier (US 2010/0054268 Al; published Mar. 4, 2010). ANALYSIS Issue 1: Did the Examiner err in finding the combination ofNaven, Almulhem, and Ambe teaches or suggests "a counter configured to track a delay-reference of packets held in the second buffer" as recited in independent claim 1? The Examiner relies on Almulhem to teach or suggest the disputed limitation. (Final Act. 3--4, citing Almulhem col. 3, 11. 11-12, 11. 27-28; Ans. 21, citing Almulhem col. 3, 11. 9-50). Specifically, the Examiner finds Almulhem describes a "counter of the starving memory buffer." (Almulhem col. 3, 11. 27-28). Appellants contend "the counter of Almulhem neither counts the number of posted packets that have been received by a receiver from posted memory while a lower-priority package is held in non-posted memory nor provides the amount of time that a lower-priority packet is held in memory." (App. Br. 9, citing Spec. i-f 20; Reply Br. 2). Appellants further argue "Almulhem is silent as to whether the packets are delayed or held in memory based on its priority level." (App. Br. 9). We are not persuaded by Appellants' arguments. Appellants' arguments are based on language in the Specification describing a value provided by the counter referred to as the delay-reference "[i]n some embodiments" and "[i]n other embodiments." (Spec. i-f 20). Although giving claims their broadest reasonable interpretation must take into account 3 Appeal2014-007319 Application 12/481,139 any definitions given in the Specification, Jn re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054 (Fed. Cir. 1997), it is improper to read into the claims limitations from examples given in the Specification. In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319, 321-22 (Fed. Cir. 1989). See also Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1323 (Fed. Cir. 2005): [A]lthough the specification often describes very specific embodiments of the invention, we have repeatedly warned against confining the claims to those embodiments . . . . In pmiicular, we have expressly rejected the contention that if a patent describes only a single embodiment, the claims of the patent must be construed as being limited to that embodiment (Internal citations omitted). \Ne find no clear definition of a "counter configured to track a delay-reference" in the claims or Specification. The Specification merely recites exemplary embodiments, including generally describing "techniques for enabling lower-priority packets to be processed in a timely manner" to avoid "starvation" such as "using a counter that tracks t11e arri-\ral and st1bseqt1e11t transmission of' lo\\1er~J)riorit)1 packets~'' (Spec~ ,-r~ 9, 20). As noted by AppeIIants, Almulhem describes that each buffer has a corresponding counter that increments by one each time the buffer is directed to by a Round-Robin pointer \vithout having its front packet scheduled for servicing, assuming it is ready to be scheduled for servicing. (Almulhem, col. 10, lL 41-45; App. Br. 9). lf a buffer's counter exceeds a predetennined level, the buffer is referred to as a "starving'' buffer. (Almulhem col. 10, lL 47----52). A ..ny "starving" buffers will then be scheduled for service. (E.g., A.Jmulhern Fig. 6, coL 11, lL 30----40). VVhen the front packet of a particular buffer is scheduled for servicing, its counter is reset (Almulhem coL 10, 11. 45---47} 4 Appeal2014-007319 Application 12/481,139 Based on this disclosure, \Ve are not persuaded the Examiner's interpretation of "a counter configured to track a delay-reforence of packets held in the second buffer" as being taught by Almulhem's counter~ is unreasonable or inconsistent with the Specification. Therefore, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in finding the combination ofNaven, Almulhem, and Ambe teaches or suggests the disputed limitation. Issue 2: Did the Examiner err in finding the combination ofNaven, Almulhem, and Ambe teaches or suggests "the controller being further configured to stop receiving packets if the delay-reference meets or exceeds a specified threshold" as recited in independent claim 1? The Examiner relies on Ambe to teach or suggest the disputed limitation. (Final Act. 5, citing Ambe col. 16, 11. 7-13, col. 28, 1. 59 - col. 34, 1. 46; Ans. 21, citing Ambe col. 15, 1. 62- col. 16, 1. 13, col. 28, 1. 59- col. 34, 1. 46). Appellants contend Ambe does not teach or suggest the disputed limitation because "Ambe merely states that each port has a preprogrammed high water and a low watermark that provides a reference for the amount of data that may pass through a particular port." (App. Br. 1 O; see also Reply Br. 3). Appellants argue "nothing in Ambe discloses that a controller stops the receipt of packets based on a specified threshold that is either met or exceeded." (Id. at 10). We are not persuaded by Appellants' arguments. We agree with the Examiner's findings and emphasize that Ambe describes that each port has a high watermark and a low watermark with respect to buffer space. (Ambe col. 29, 11. 7-10). When the output queue for a port hits the high watermark, the ingress is configured to drop all packets going to that port. (Ambe col. 5 Appeal2014-007319 Application 12/481,139 29, 11. 13-27). Accordingly, we find Ambe teaches or suggests a controller being further configured to stop receiving packets (i.e., drop all packets going to that port) if the delay-reference meets or exceeds a specified threshold (i.e., high watermark). Therefore, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in finding the combination ofNaven, Almulhem, and Ambe teaches or suggests the disputed limitation. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of independent claim 1, and independent claims 10 and 16, which recite similar limitations. With respect to the dependent claims, Appellants also argue Divivier and Davis do not teach or suggest the disputed limitations. (App. Br. 11-12). However, as noted supra, the Examiner does not rely on Divivier and Davis to teach or suggest the disputed limitations. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejections of dependent claims 2, 4--9, 11-14, and 17-18, which were not argued separately. DECISION For the above reasons, the Examiner's rejections of claims 1, 2, 4--14, and 16-18 are affirmed. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l )(iv). AFFIRMED 6 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation