Ex Parte Chung et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

May 10, 2016

13197664 (P.T.A.B. May. 10, 2016)

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