Ex Parte Dominguez et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 7, 2017

12260061 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 7, 2017)

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.
12/260,061 10/28/2008 Charles Dominguez 5607.0630000 (P6702US1) 2084
63975 7590 02/09/2017
STERNE, KESSLER, GOLDSTEIN & FOX P.L.L.C.
1100 NEW YORK AVENUE, N.W.
WASHINGTON, DC 20005
EXAMINER
BARTELS, CHRISTOPHER A.
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2184
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/09/2017 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):
e-office @ skgf.com
Apple-eOA @ skgf.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte CHARLES DOMINGUEZ and BRIAN TUCKER
Appeal 2016-004820
Application 12/260,0611
Technology Center 2100
Before DEBRA K. STEPHENS, KARA L. SZPONDOWSKI, and
MICHAEL J. ENGLE, Administrative Patent Judges.
ENGLE, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of
claims 1—20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
Technology
The application relates to “packet filter optimization for network
interfaces.” Spec. Title.
Illustrative Claim
Claim 1 is illustrative and reproduced below with the limitation at
issue emphasized:
1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Apple, Inc. Br. 1.
Appeal 2016-004820
Application 12/260,061
1. A computer implemented method, comprising:
in response to receiving a packet into a buffer in a
peripheral device coupled with a host processor via a local bus,
determining, in the peripheral device, whether the packet is to be
aggregated in a local storage in the peripheral device, wherein
the determination whether to aggregate the packet depends on
information within a header of the packet and a payload of the
packet, the information comprising at least one of a type of
protocol or an application with which the packet is associated,
and the information within the payload of the packet comprising
information from a network layer different than a network layer
of the header of the packet;
if the packet is determined not to be aggregated, sending a
hardware interrupt from the peripheral device to a host system
including the host processor via the local bus to notify
availability of the packet, the hardware interrupt including an
indicator indicating the availability; and
sending the packet from the peripheral device to the
interrupted host system via the local bus directly from the buffer,
wherein the hardware interrupt and the packet are sent
asynchronously over separate portions of the local bus.
Rejections
Claims 1—6, 10-15, and 19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a) as
anticipated by Thompson (US 7,403,542 Bl; July 22, 2008). Final Act 2.
Claims 7—9, 16—18, and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
obvious over the combination of Thompson and Lindsay (US 6,564,267 Bl;
May 13, 2003). Final Act 9.
ISSUE
Did the Examiner err finding Thompson discloses “the determination
whether to aggregate the packet depends on information within a header of
the packet and a payload of the packet,” as recited in claim 1?
2
Appeal 2016-004820
Application 12/260,061
ANALYSIS
Anticipation
Appellants argue “Thompson describes using IP header
information” to determine whether to aggregate packets, but not using “a
header of the packet and a payload of the packet,” as recited in claim 1.
Br. 10.
However, the Examiner correctly finds Thompson discloses multiple
network layers, including “the network layer (IP) and the link layer (i.e.
Ethernet)” (Thompson 1:43—50, 2:50—58), with “Ethernet being a well-
known network layer protocol encapsulating/carrying other protocols (such
as TCP/ISCSI/IP) within the payload of the network packet.” Ans. 2—3
(emphasis added). Appellants concede Thompson uses an IP header to
determine whether to aggregate packets (Br. 10), yet have not sufficiently
addressed the Examiner’s finding that the IP header is actually part of the
payload of the Ethernet packet. Ans. 2—3; Final Act. 4, 15. To the contrary,
Appellants’ Brief never mentions Ethernet or otherwise addresses the
Examiner’s findings regarding Ethernet. Given Appellants have not
proffered sufficient evidence or argument, we are not persuaded the
Examiner erred.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1, and
claims 2—6, 10-15, and 19, which Appellants argue are patentable for similar
reasons. See Br. 8—11; 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv).
Obviousness
Dependent claims 7—9, 16—18, and 20 stand rejected as obvious rather
than anticipated, but Appellants rely solely on the arguments against the
3
Appeal 2016-004820
Application 12/260,061
anticipated independent claims, which we do not find persuasive for the
reasons discussed above. Br. 11.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 7—9, 16—
18, and 20.
DECISION
For the reasons above, we affirm the Examiner’s decision rejecting
claims 1—20.
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
4