Ex Parte Cardona et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardJun 13, 201311751302 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 13, 2013) Copy Citation UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARKOFFICE 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. 11/751,302 05/21/2007 OMAR CARDONA AUS920070450US1 1766 61043 7590 06/14/2013 IBM CORPORATION (MH) c/o MITCH HARRIS, ATTORNEY AT LAW, L.L.C. P.O. BOX 7998 ATHENS, GA 30604 EXAMINER SLOMS, NICHOLAS ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2476 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 06/14/2013 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 PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte OMAR CARDONA, JAMES BRIAN CUNNINGHAM, BALTAZAR DE LEON III, and JEFFREY PAUL MESSING ____________ Appeal 2011-002329 Application 11/751,302 Technology Center 2400 ____________ Before CAROLYN D. THOMAS, ERIC B. CHEN, and MATTHEW R. CLEMENTS, Administrative Patent Judges. CLEMENTS, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s final rejection of claims 21-40. Claims 1-20 have been cancelled. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We reverse. STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants’ invention generally relates to writing data to a network adapter from buffers that are registered with the network adapter and/or from Appeal 2011-002329 Application 11/751,302 2 buffers that are not registered with the adapter. If a buffer is registered with the network adapter, the buffer is provided directly to the network adapter. If a buffer is not registered with the network adapter, either its content is copied to a registered buffer or the buffer is registered on-the- fly. See generally Abstract, Spec. ¶¶ [0047-0054]. Claim 21 is illustrative, with disputed limitations in italics: 21. A method of transmitting data from an interface adapter of a computer system, the method comprising: collecting a set of data buffers for transmission in a packet by the interface adapter; generating a buffer list containing entries describing the collected set of data buffers, wherein the set of data buffers includes interface specific buffers and non-interface specific buffers; and parsing the buffer list by a device driver associated with the interface adapter to transmit the data, wherein for each entry of the buffer list, the device driver determines whether or not the corresponding buffer is an interface specific buffer, and responsive to determining that the corresponding buffer is not an interface specific buffer, further processing the data in the corresponding buffer to provide a registered buffer containing the data to the interface adapter, and responsive to determining that the corresponding buffer is an interface specific buffer, the device driver provides the interface specific buffer directly to the interface adapter without further processing the data. THE REJECTIONS 1. Claims 21, 24, 28, 31, 35, and 38 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Pizel (US 2004/0215907 A1; published Oct. 28, 2004). Ans. 3-11.1 1 Throughout this opinion, we refer to (1) the Appeal Brief filed May 4, 2010 (“App. Br.”); (2) the Examiner’s Answer mailed July 14, 2010 (“Ans.”); and (3) the Reply Brief filed Sept. 14, 2010 (“Reply Br.”). Appeal 2011-002329 Application 11/751,302 3 2. Claims 22, 23, 25, 26, 29, 30, 32, 33, 36, 37, 39, and 40 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Pizel and Ryzhykh (US 2008/0235409 A1; filed May 31, 2006; published Sept. 25, 2008). Ans. 11-15. 3. Claims 27 and 34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Pizel, Ryzhykh, and Kuo (US 2005/0228936 A1; published Oct. 13, 2005). Ans. 15. THE OBVIOUSNESS REJECTION OVER PIZEL The Examiner finds that Pizel discloses every recited element of representative claim 21 except for “interface specific” and “non-interface specific” buffers, but finds that this feature would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art in concluding that the claim would have been obvious. Ans. 4-5. Appellants argue, inter alia, that “the Claims recite that the device driver, in response to determining an entry in the buffer list is an interface- specific buffer, passes the buffer directly to the interface adapter and if the entry is not an interface-specific buffer, the device driver processes the buffer to provide a registered buffer to the interface adapter,” which Pizel does not teach . App. Br. 11 (emphasis in original). ISSUE Under § 103, has the Examiner erred by finding that Pizel would have taught or suggested “parsing the buffer list by a device driver … and responsive to determining that the corresponding buffer is not an interface specific buffer, further processing the data in the corresponding buffer to Appeal 2011-002329 Application 11/751,302 4 provide a registered buffer containing the data to the interface adapter,” as recited in claim 21? ANALYSIS We find Appellants’ argument that Pizel does not teach selective processing of a buffer list corresponding to the limitation “parsing the buffer list by a device driver … and responsive to determining that the corresponding buffer is not an interface specific buffer, further processing the data in the corresponding buffer to provide a registered buffer containing the data to the interface adapter” to be persuasive. App. Br. 11; Reply Br. 5- 6. The Examiner finds that Pizel discloses further processing (i.e., registering) a buffer responsive to determining that the corresponding buffer (i.e., the buffer indicated by address 310) is not an interface specific buffer (i.e., has not yet been preregistered). Ans. 5, 17. The Examiner found that translation table 272 includes a field (valid indicator 320) that indicates whether the buffer indicated by the address 310 is pre-registered (valid indicator 320 is “on”) or has not yet been pre-registered (valid indicator 320 is “off”). Ans. 17; Pizel Fig. 3, ¶ [0039]. However, as Appellants point out, a buffer listed in the translation table is pre-registered by the translation table manager in response to a pre-registration message 400 from a device driver (e.g., device driver 233, 234, or 235). App. Br. 11; Reply Br. 5-6; Pizel ¶ [0043], [0046], [0047]. In response to a pre-registration message 400, the translation table manager 270 sets the valid indicator 320 to “on.” Pizel ¶ 0047. During a data transfer operation, if the valid indicator 320 is not set to “on,” that buffer does not undergo the recited “further processing” Appeal 2011-002329 Application 11/751,302 5 (i.e., registering of the buffer indicated by address 310). Reply Br. 5-6; Pizel ¶ [0050]; see also Pizel ¶ [0051]. Instead, an error is returned. Id. Because Pizel returns an error rather than “further processing” an unregistered buffer, we are persuaded of error in the Examiner’s finding. We are therefore persuaded that the Examiner erred in rejecting independent claim 21, independent claims 28 and 35 which recite commensurate limitations, and dependent claims 24, 31, and 38 for similar reasons. THE OTHER OBVIOUSNESS REJECTIONS Since the Examiner has not shown that Ryzhykh or Kuo cures the deficiencies noted above, we will not sustain the obviousness rejection of claims 22, 23, 25, 26, 27, 29, 30, 32, 33, 34, 36, 37, 39, and 40 (Ans. 11-15) for similar reasons. CONCLUSION The Examiner erred in rejecting claims 21-40 under § 103. ORDER The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 21-40 is reversed. REVERSED gvw Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation