Ex Parte Chadha et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Oct 15, 2010

11047549 (B.P.A.I. Oct. 15, 2010)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte SUNDEEP CHADHA, MARK ANTHONY CHECK,
BERNARD CHARLES DRERUP, and MICHAEL GRASSI
___________

Appeal 2009-008320
Application 11/047,549
Technology Center 2100
____________

Before, LANCE LEONARD BARRY, ST. JOHN COURTENAY III, and
CAROLYN D. THOMAS, Administrative Patent Judges.

COURTENAY, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL1

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 of the Examiner’s
final decision rejecting claims 1-16. Claims 17-20 are cancelled. We have
jurisdiction over the appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).

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 2009-008320
Application 11/047,549

2

We Affirm.
BACKGROUND
Appellants’ invention is directed to digital data processing hardware,
and particularly to data interfaces for transferring data between different
components of a digital data processing device. (Spec. 1).
Claim 1 is illustrative:

1. An integrated circuit chip for a digital data device,
comprising:

a plurality of functional component modules;

a central interconnect module;

a respective communications bus corresponding to each
of said plurality of functional component modules, each
respective communications bus employing a common protocol
and connecting the corresponding functional component
module with said central interconnect module, said
communications buses and said central interconnect module
forming a plurality of communications paths between
respective different pairs of said plurality of functional
component modules, each of said plurality of communications
paths comprising a communications bus corresponding to a first
functional component module of a respective one of said pairs
of said plurality of functional component modules, said central
interconnect module, and a communications bus corresponding
to a second functional component module of the respective pair
of functional component modules;

at least one shared buffer in said central interconnect
module, wherein data being transferred between functional
component modules along a communications path of said
plurality of communication paths is temporarily stored in said at
least one shared buffer, and wherein said at least one shared
Appeal 2009-008320
Application 11/047,549

3
buffer is shared by functional component modules sending data
along respective communications paths and by functional
component modules receiving data from respective
communications paths.

Prior Art
Naumann US 7,051,150 B2 May 23, 2006

Appellants appeal the following rejection:
1. Claims 1-16 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as unpatentable over Naumann.

APPELLANTS’ CONTENTIONS
Appellants do not contest the Examiner's findings that the claimed
“functional component modules” are disclosed by Naumann’s “bus gasket”
interface units 107 (Fig. 1), and the claimed “central interconnect module.”
is disclosed by Naumann’s “interconnect fabric” 110 (Fig. 1). (See App. Br.
11, § 2, i.e., Appellants concede: “Fair enough.”). 2
However, Appellants contend that Naumann fails to disclose at least
one shared buffer as recited in representative claim 1. (Id.).

2 See Constant v. Advanced Micro-Devices, Inc., 848 F.2d 1560, 1570 (Fed.
Cir. 1988) (“A statement in a patent that something is in the prior art is
binding on the applicant and patentee for determinations of anticipation and
obviousness.”); In re Nomiya, 509 F.2d 566, 571 n.5 (CCPA 1975) (It is a
“basic proposition that a statement by an applicant, whether in the
application or in other papers submitted during prosecution, that certain
matter is ‘prior art’ to him, is an admission that that matter is prior art for all
purposes . . . .”).

Appeal 2009-008320
Application 11/047,549

4
Grouping of Claims
Appellants’ arguments specifically address independent claim 1. (See
App. Br. et seq. 11). Therefore, we select claim 1 as representative of claims
1-16. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(vii).

ISSUE
Under § 102, did the Examiner err in determining that Naumann
discloses at least one shared buffer that is shared by a plurality of functional
component modules, within the meaning of representative claim 1?

FACTUAL FINDINGS
1. Appellants accept the Examiner’s findings that the claimed
“functional component modules” are disclosed by Naumann’s “bus gasket”
interface units 107 (Fig. 1), and the claimed “central interconnect module.”
is disclosed by Naumann’s “interconnect fabric” 110 (Fig. 1). (App. Br. 11).
2. Naumann’s Fig. 1 illustrates that each bus gasket 107 has a
corresponding fabric gasket 111. Each bus gasket converts transactions into
packets. (Col. 4, ll. 61-62).
3. Naumann’s Fig. 2 illustrates a register set 219 (col. 6, l. 9) that
is a part of the “source” fabric gasket 111 and is used by the “destination”
fabric gasket 111 via Interconnect 221. Note: Interconnect fabric 110 of
Figure 1 is shown as an exemplary interconnect fabric 210 in Figure 2. (Col.
5, ll. 40-41).
4. Naumann discloses that each fabric gasket 111 includes
buffering and/or registers . . . .” (Col. 4, ll. 58-59).

Appeal 2009-008320
Application 11/047,549

5
Claim Groupings
Appellants’ arguments specifically address independent claim 1. (See
App. Br. 11). We select claim 1 as representative of claims 1-16. See
37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(vii).
ANALYSIS
At the outset, we broadly but reasonably construe the disputed claim
term “shared buffer.” We note that Appellants have not provided a definition
of the claim term “shared” in either the Specification or claim language.
Therefore, we accord the term “shared” its plain meaning, i.e., to be used
by.3 Thus, we broadly but reasonably interpret the “at least one shared
buffer” as at least one buffer that is “used by” sending and receiving
functional component modules, within the meaning of representative claim
1.
Given our construction, we find unconvincing Appellants’ argument
that Naumann does not disclose at least one shared buffer as claimed.
Appellants state that Naumann discloses that each fabric gasket
includes buffering and/or registers. (App. Br. 11; see also FF 4). According
to Appellants, Fig. 1 of Naumann shows there are multiple fabric gaskets
111, each coupled to a different bus gasket, which the Examiner reads as the
functional module. (App. Br. 11). Therefore, according to Appellants, “each
fabric gasket contains a respective buffer,” i.e., “there is a buffer

3 Absent an express intent to impart a novel meaning to a claim term, the
words take on the ordinary and customary meanings attributed to them by
those of ordinary skill in the art. Brookhill-Wilk 1, LLC v. Intuitive Surgical,
Inc., 334 F.3d 1294, 1298 (Fed. Cir. 2003).
Appeal 2009-008320
Application 11/047,549

6
corresponding to the sending bus gasket and a separate buffer corresponding
to the receiving bus gasket.” (Id.).
Appellants contend that “Fig. 2 shows a respective packet buffer 203,
209 in each of the ‘source bus gasket’ and the ‘destination bus gasket’.
Clearly, these buffers are not shared.” (emphasis added) (App. Br. 12).
Based upon our review of the record, we agree with the Examiner’s
finding that the claimed “shared buffer” is disclosed by Naumann’s register
set 219. (Ans. 9; see also Naumann, col. 6, l. 9) We find that Fig. 2 of
Naumann illustrates a fabric gasket 111 associated with the source interface
204, where “source” fabric gasket 111 has a register set 219 (shared buffer)
that sends received data along a communications path connecting to
interconnect 221, where a second “destination” fabric gasket 111 (associated
with destination interface 206) receives (i.e., uses) data from shared buffer
219 via interconnect 221 along the communications path.
We particularly note that Naumann’s Fig. 1 illustrates that each bus
gasket 107 (functional component module), has a corresponding fabric
gasket 111 that is shown in both Figs. 1 and 2. (FF 2; see also col. 5, l. 42).
Thus, the “source” and “destination” fabric gaskets 111 shown in Fig. 2 each
have corresponding bus gaskets (i.e., functional component modules).
Naumann’s Fig. 2 illustrates a register set 2194 (i.e., shared buffer) that is
shown within “source” fabric gasket 111 (having associated bus gaskets or
“function component modules”) that is used by the “destination” fabric
gasket 111 (also having associated bus gaskets or “function component
modules”) via Interconnect 221. We note that interconnect fabric 110 of

4 See Naumann col. 6, ll. 9-10: “register set 219 of the fabric gasket 111.”
Appeal 2009-008320
Application 11/047,549

7
Figure 1 is shown as an exemplary interconnect fabric 210 in Figure 2. (FF
3).
Therefore, in light of our claim construction and for the reasons
discussed above, we agree with the Examiner’s finding (Ans. 9) that
Appellants’ shared buffer is met by register set 219 of the fabric gasket 111,
as shown in Fig. 2 of Naumann.
We find the source bus gaskets (function component modules) and the
destination bus gaskets (function component modules) each share register
set 219 because register set 219 is available to, and is therefore used, by both
the source bus gaskets and destination bus gaskets (function component
modules) via the Interconnect 221. Therefore, we find that Fig. 2 of
Naumann discloses at least one buffer (register set 219) that is shared by
both source and destination functional component modules within the
meaning of Appellants’ claim 1.
On this record, we find Appellants’ arguments unpersuasive of
Examiner error. Accordingly, we affirm the Examiner’s § 102 rejection of
representative claim 1, and claims 2-16 which fall therewith.

DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s § 102(e) rejection of claims 1-16.
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.
§ 1.136(a)(1) (2009).

ORDER
AFFIRMED
Appeal 2009-008320
Application 11/047,549

8

pgc/llw

IBM CORPORATION
ROCHESTER IP LAW DEPT. 917
3605 HIGHWAY 52 NORTH
ROCHESTER, MN 55901-7829