Ex Parte Chung et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardMay 10, 201613197664 (P.T.A.B. May. 10, 2016) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 13/197,664 08/03/2011 89980 7590 05/12/2016 NSIPLAW P.O. Box 65745 Washington, DC 20035 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Hee-Jin Chung 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. Oll053.0097 6242 EXAMINER KESSLER, GREGORY AARON ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2196 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 05/12/2016 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): pto@nsiplaw.com pto.nsip@gmail.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte HEE-JIN CHUNG, HYUN-KI BAIK, JAE-WON KIM, and GYONG-JIN JOUNG Appeal2014-004245 Application 13/197, 664 Technology Center 2100 Before ROBERT E. NAPPI, JAMES W. DEJMEK, and GARTH D. BAER, Administrative Patent Judges. NAPPI, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the rejection of claims 1 through 7, 9 through 16, and 18 through 21. The Examiner has identified claims 8 and 17 as reciting allowable subject matter. We have jurisdiction over the remaining pending claims under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ). We reverse and enter a new rejection. INVENTION Appellants' invention relates to an apparatus for data processing in a heterogeneous multi-processor environment in which the data is dynamically partitioned into regions having difference sizes based upon operations and Appeal2014-004245 Application 13/197, 664 " "-1': " " " ~ " A t... 01 " 1 " operat10n-speChlC processor pnonty lil10rmat10n. r-wstract. v1alill i lS illustrative of the invention and reproduced below: 1. An apparatus for data processing in a heterogeneous multi-processor environment, the apparatus comprising: one or more processors; an analysis unit configured to analyze operations to be run in connection with data processing and analyze a type of the one or more processors and a number of the one or more processors available for the data processing; a partition unit configured to dynamically partition data into a plurality of data regions having different sizes based on the analyzed operations and operation-specific processor priority information, the operation-specific processor priority information being stored in advance of running the operations; and a scheduling unit configured to perform scheduling by allocating operations to be run in the data regions between the one or more processors available for the data processing. REJECTIONS AT ISSUE The Examiner has rejected claims 1, 3 through 5, 10, 12 through 14, and 19 through 21under35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Baik (US 2009/0154572 Al; June 18, 2009) and Crutchfield (US 8,108,844 B2; issued Jan. 31, 2012). Answer 4--7. 1 The Examiner has rejected claims 2 and 11under35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Baik, Crutchfield, and Price (US 4,722,072; issued Jan. 26, 1988). Answer 7-8. 1 Throughout this Opinion we refer to the Appeal Brief filed September 27, 2013, Reply Brief filed January 22, 2014, and the Examiner's Answer mailed on November 22, 2013. 2 Appeal2014-004245 Application 13/197, 664 The Examiner has rejected claims 6, 9, 15, and 18 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Baik, Crutchfield, and Kizaki (US 7,369,256 B2; issued May 6, 2008). Answer 8-9. The Examiner has rejected claims 7 and 16 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Baik, Crutchfield, Kizaki, and Miloushev (US 7,380,039 B2; issued May 27, 2008). Answer 9-10. ISSUE Appellants argue, on pages 9 through 10 of the Appeal Brief, that the Examiner's rejection of independent claims 1 and 10 is in error. The dispositive issue presented by these arguments is: Did the Examiner err in finding the combination of Baik and Crutchfield teach a partition unit configured to dynamically partition data into a plurality of data regions having different sizes based on the analyzed operations and operation- specific processor priority information, the operation-specific processor priority information being stored in advance of running the operations? ANALYSIS We have reviewed the Examiner's rejections in light of Appellants' contentions that the Examiner has erred. Further, we have reviewed the Examiner's response to Appellants' arguments. We agree with Appellants' conclusion that the Examiner erred in rejecting independent claims 1 and 10. Appellants assert that each of the independent claims recite partitioning based upon operation-specific processor priority information, which is not taught by Crutchfield, the reference cited by the Examiner as teaching this limitation. App. Br. 10, Reply Br. 3. 3 Appeal2014-004245 Application 13/197, 664 In response, the Examiner states: In Col. 49, Lines 22-25, Crutchfield teaches that the operations can be sorted in advance by priority before being assigned (partitioned) to a processor. Since each operation has its own priority, the priority information is "operation-specific". Answer 12. We disagree with the Examiner that the cited portion of Crutchfield teaches the disputed limitation. Each of the claims recites portioning based upon an "operation-specific processor priority." The Examiner's response addresses priority information associated with an operation not a priority information associated with an operation-specific processor as claimed. Accordingly, we will not sustain the Examiner's rejection of independent claims 1 and 10 or dependent claims 3 through 5, 12 through 14, and 19 through 21 similarly rejected. The Examiner has not shown that the additional references used in rejecting the dependent claims make up for the deficiency in the rejection of independent claims 1 and 10. Accordingly, we similarly will not sustain the Examiner's rejection of claims 2, 6, 7, 9 through 11, 15, 16, and 18. NEW REJECTION Claim 1 is directed to an apparatus in a multi-processor environment wherein the apparatus comprises one or more processors. Further, claim 1 recites the apparatus comprises a partition unit configured to dynamically partition data based on, inter alia, operation-specific processor priority information, which implies more than one processor. Accordingly, we determine the limitation of "one or more processors" introduces ambiguity in the claim for the condition when there is only one processor. We note claim 19, which depends from claim 1, contemplates this scenario, as it adds 4 Appeal2014-004245 Application 13/197, 664 the limitation "wherein the one or more processors comprises more than one processor." For at least these reasons, we newly reject independent claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph. For similar reasons, we also reject claims 2 through 9 and 21, which depend therefrom. 2 DECISION The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1 through 7, 9 through 16, and 18 through 21 is reversed. We now reject claims 1through9 and 21under35 U.S.C. § 112 as being ambiguous. This Decision contains a new ground of rejection pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b). This section provides that "[a] new ground of rejection ... shall not be considered final for judicial review." 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) also provides that the Appellants, WITHIN TWO MONTHS FROM THE DATE OF THE DECISION, must exercise one of the following two options with respect to the new ground of rejection to avoid termination of the appeal as to the rejected claims: (1) Reopen prosecution. Submit an appropriate amendment of the claims so rejected or new evidence relating to the claims so rejected, or both, and have the matter reconsidered by the examiner, in which event the proceeding will be remanded to the examiner .... 2 We further note independent claim 10 appears to have a similar shortcoming, particularly when viewed in light of dependent claim 20. In the event of further prosecution, we invite the Examiner to determine whether claim 10 comports with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. § 112. Our decision not to enter a new ground of rejection for all claims should not be considered an indication regarding the appropriateness of further rejection or allowance of the non-rejected claims. See MPEP § 1213.03 5 Appeal2014-004245 Application 13/197, 664 (2) Request rehearing. Request that the proceeding be reheard under § 41.52 by the Board upon the same record .... 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). REVERSED 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 6 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation