Ex Parte Calvignac et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Sep 21, 2010

11469390 (B.P.A.I. Sep. 21, 2010)

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.
11/469,390 08/31/2006 Jean Louis Calvignac RAL920000095US2 6397
45211 7590 09/22/2010
Robert A. Voigt, Jr.
WINSTEAD SECHREST & MINICK PC
PO BOX 50784
DALLAS, TX 75201
EXAMINER
POLLACK, MELVIN H
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2445
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/22/2010 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 BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte JEAN LOUIS CALVIGNAC,
MARCO C. HEDDES,
JOSEPH FRANKLIN LOGAN,
and FABRICE JEAN VERPLANKEN
____________

Appeal 2009-007113
Application 11/469,390
Technology Center 2400
____________

Before HOWARD B. BLANKENSHIP, ST. JOHN COURTENAY III, and
STEPHEN C. SIU, Administrative Patent Judges.

BLANKENSHIP, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL1

1 The two-month time period for filing an appeal or commencing a civil
action, as recited in 37 C.F.R. § 1.304, or for filing a request for rehearing,
as recited in 37 C.F.R. § 41.52, begins to run from the “MAIL DATE”
(paper delivery mode) or the “NOTIFICATION DATE” (electronic delivery
mode) shown on the PTOL-90A cover letter attached to this decision.
Appeal 2009-007113
Application 11/469,390

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s final
rejection of claims 11-19, which are all the claims remaining in the
application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.

Invention
Appellants’ invention relates to a method and system for reducing
memory accesses by inserting qualifiers in control blocks. The system has a
processor with a plurality of buffers configured to store frames of data,
where each frame of data is associated with a frame control block. Each
frame control block associated with a frame of data is associated with one or
more buffer control blocks. Each control block has one or more qualifier
fields that include information related to another control block. The last
frame control block in a queue as well as the last buffer control block
associated with a frame control block has fields with no information, thereby
reducing memory accesses to access information in those fields. Abstract.

Representative Claim
11. A method for reducing memory accesses by inserting
qualifiers in control blocks comprising the steps of:

receiving a frame of data;

leasing one or more buffer control blocks;

storing said frame of data in one or more buffers
associated with said one or more buffer control blocks in a data
storage unit; and
Appeal 2009-007113
Application 11/469,390

3

leasing a frame control block associated with said one or
more buffer control blocks;

wherein said frame control block comprise one or more
qualifier fields, wherein said one or more qualifier fields in said
frame control block comprise information related to one of said
one or more buffers in said data storage unit.

Examiner’s Rejections
Claims 11-19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being
anticipated by Kadambi (US 7,145,869 B1).

ISSUE
Have Appellants shown that the Examiner erred in finding that
Kadambi anticipates claims 11-19?

FINDINGS OF FACT
We rely on the findings of fact made by the Examiner in the Final
Rejection and the Examiner’s Answer.

PRINCIPLES OF LAW
Claim Interpretation
During examination, claims are to be given their broadest reasonable
interpretation consistent with the specification, and the language should be
read in light of the specification as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary
skill in the art. In re Amer. Acad. of Sci. Tech Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364
(Fed. Cir. 2004) (citations omitted). The Office must apply the broadest
Appeal 2009-007113
Application 11/469,390

4
reasonable meaning to the claim language, taking into account any
definitions presented in the specification. Id. (citations omitted).
Our reviewing court has held that non-functional descriptive material
cannot lend patentability to an invention that would have otherwise been
anticipated by the prior art. See In re Ngai, 367 F.3d 1336, 1339 (Fed. Cir.
2004). Cf. In re Gulack, 703 F.2d 1381, 1385 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (when
descriptive material is not functionally related to the substrate, the
descriptive material will not distinguish the invention from the prior art in
terms of patentability). The content of non-functional descriptive material is
not entitled to weight in the patentability analysis. See In re Lowry, 32 F.3d
1579, 1583 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (“Lowry does not claim merely the information
content of a memory.”). See also Ex parte Nehls, 88 USPQ2d 1883, 1887-
90 (BPAI 2008) (precedential) (discussing non-functional descriptive
material).

Anticipation
For a prior art reference to anticipate in terms of 35 U.S.C. § 102,
every element of the claimed invention must be identically shown in a single
reference. However, this is not an “ipsissimis verbis” test. In re Bond, 910
F.2d 831, 832 (Fed. Cir. 1990).

ANALYSIS
Section 102 rejection of claim 11
Appellants contend that there is no language in Kadambi that teaches
leasing one or more buffer control blocks (App. Br. 3), storing said frame of
data in one or more buffers associated with said one or more buffer control
Appeal 2009-007113
Application 11/469,390

5
blocks in a data storage unit (App. Br. 4-5), leasing a frame control block
associated with the one or more buffer control blocks (App. Br. 5-6), and
said frame control block comprise one or more qualifier fields, wherein said
one or more qualifier fields in said frame control block comprise information
related to one of said one or more buffers in said data storage unit (App. Br.
6-8).
The Examiner finds that Kadambi discloses all elements of claim 1
(Ans. 3). The Examiner finds that Kadambi discloses a method of
separating a packet of data into cells that have header and message data.
The Examiner interprets the “buffer control block” as a component that can
control the buffers, such as a memory management unit, or a command from
the memory management unit regarding the received packet. The Examiner
interprets “leasing one or more buffer control blocks” as encompassing
commands from the memory management unit that are based on, or “leased
to,” a received packet. The packet is stored in one or more buffers based on
the commands, which means that the buffers are “associated with said one or
more buffer control blocks” within the meaning of claim 1. Ans. 5-6.
Appellants respond that, according to their Specification, a buffer control
block is not a system component or a command from a memory
management unit. Reply Br. 3.
However, the sections of Appellants’ Specification cited in the Reply
Brief merely give examples of what a buffer control block “may be.”
Appellants have not provided a definition of buffer control block in the
Specification or the claim that excludes a memory management unit that can
control the buffers, or a command from a memory management unit, as
interpreted by the Examiner.
Appeal 2009-007113
Application 11/469,390

6
The Examiner further finds that the “frame control block” is a part of
the header of the packet. Ans. 6. Appellants contend that, in interpreting a
frame control block consistent with the Specification, one of ordinary skill in
the art would not conclude that a frame control block is equivalent to a
header of a packet. Reply Br. 3-4. However, the sections of Appellants’
Specification cited in the Reply Brief merely give examples of what a frame
control block “may be.” Appellants have not provided a definition of frame
control block in the Specification or the claim that excludes a part of the
header of a packet as interpreted by the Examiner.
The Examiner finds that the fields of the header correspond to the
claimed “one or more qualifier fields” that “comprise information related to
one of said one or more buffers” within the meaning of claim 1. In
particular, the Examiner finds that that the information in the qualifier fields
encompasses address information in the header of a cell that relates to the
system, and information for monitoring how the packet was split into cells,
such as starting and ending bytes, so that the system can later recombine the
cells into packets. Ans. 6. Appellants contend that the Examiner’s
statements are merely the Examiner’s subjective opinion with no supporting
evidence. In particular, Appellants contend that Kadambi does not monitor
how cells were split, does not acquire information such as starting or ending
bytes, and does not recombine the cells into packets. Reply Br. 4-5.
We disagree. The Examiner’s findings are supported by the record.
For example, the Examiner finds that Kadambi describes storing data in
buffers at column 7, line 25 to column 8, line 50. This section of Kadambi
discusses packets that are stored as cells and reassembled as packets before
being sent out on egress ports (col. 7, ll. 30-32), which supports the
Appeal 2009-007113
Application 11/469,390

7
Examiner’s finding that the system recombines the cells into packets. The
Examiner finds that the “said one or more qualifier fields in said frame
control block comprise information related to one of said one or more
buffers” is described by Kadambi at column 9, line 25 to column 12, line 40.
This section discusses fields of the protocol channel. One field is a “next
cell” field that identifies whether the valid bytes in the cell are between 1 to
16, between 17 to 32, between 33 to 48, or between 49 to 64. Another field
is a number that identifies a port that sends or receives the message. An “S”
bit field identifies the cell as the first cell of the packet. An “E” bit field
identifies the cell as the last cell of the packet. Col. 9, ll. 42-61. The
reference thus supports the Examiner’s finding that information in the
header of the cells includes information for monitoring how a packet is split
into cells, such as starting and ending bytes.
Appellants have not addressed these specific factual findings of the
Examiner, other than to allege that these findings are the Examiner’s
subjective opinion. Appellants have not provided evidence or persuasive
arguments to rebut the Examiner’s findings that the “qualifier fields” recited
in claim 1 encompass the fields that store information in the headers of cells
as described in Kadambi. We therefore disagree with Appellants and find
that the Examiner’s factual findings are supported by Kadambi.

Section 102 rejection of claim 12
Appellants contend that Kadambi discloses storing packets in a buffer
pool as a series of linked cells. Appellants also contend that Kadambi does
not describe enqueing the frame control block. App. Br. 9. Appellants
appear to base this contention on the premise that Kadambi does not
Appeal 2009-007113
Application 11/469,390

8
describe a frame control block. However, Kadambi describes a frame
control block as discussed in the analysis of claim 11. Further, Appellants
have not presented evidence or persuasive arguments to distinguish storing a
series of linked cells in a buffer from “enqueing said frame control block in
a queue” as recited in claim 12.

Section 102 rejection of claims 13-19
Appellants contend that the specific type of “information” recited in
claims 13-15 and 17, the specific type of “address” recited in claims 16 and
18, and the specific “number” recited in claim 19 are not disclosed by
Kadambi.
To the extent that Appellants rely on the informational content of the
data, we observe that the data consist of what has come to be known as non-
functional descriptive material, as defined in Manual of Patent Examining
Procedure (MPEP) § 2106.01. The informational content of the non-
functional descriptive material carries no weight in the analysis of
patentability over the prior art. Thus, this descriptive material will not
distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art in terms of patentability.
For example, the “qualifier fields” of claim 13 “comprise information
as to an address of one of said one or more buffer control blocks associated
with current frame control block.” However, the claim does not recite or
require that the “information as to an address” modifies, to any extent, the
steps of the method (recited in base claim 11). The “address of one of said
one or more buffer control blocks associated with current frame control
block” is therefore a mere description of data, not entitled to patentable
weight.
Appeal 2009-007113
Application 11/469,390

9
Similar to claim 13, each of dependent claims 14-19 consist of
“wherein” clauses that recite data content which is not entitled to weight in
the analysis of patentability over the prior art.

CONCLUSION OF LAW
Appellants have not shown that the Examiner erred in finding that
Kadambi anticipates claims 11-19.

DECISION
The rejection of claims 11-19 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being
anticipated by Kadambi is 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). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.50(f).

AFFIRMED

msc

Robert A. Voigt, Jr.
WINSTEAD SECHREST & MINICK PC
PO BOX 50784
DALLAS TX 75201