Ex Parte Duroiu et al

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jan 30, 2019

14706203 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Jan. 30, 2019)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
14/706,203 05/07/2015
115309 7590 02/01/2019
W &T/Qualcomm
106 Pinedale Springs Way
Cary, NC 27511
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Cristian Duroiu
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.
103230C l/ll 73-025C 9053
EXAMINER
HUYNH,KIMT
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2185
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/01/2019 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):
patents@wt-ip.com
us-docketing@qualcomm.com
ocpat_uspto@qualcomm.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte CRISTIAN DUROIU,
JAY A PRAKASH SUBRAMANIAM GANASAN,
VINOD CHAMARTY, MARK MICHAEL SCHAFFER,
JOSHUA HIRSCH STUBBS,
ROBERT NICHOLSON GIBSON, KRIS TIRI,
MOINUL KHAN, BOHUSLA V RYCHLIK,
SERAG GADELRAB, and SIMON BOOTH
Appeal2017-011648
Application 14/706,203 1
Technology Center 2100
Before THU A. DANG, JENNIFER S. BISK, and NORMAN H. BEAMER,
Administrative Patent Judges.
BISK, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the Final Rejection of
claims 24, and 27-59. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
1 Appellants identify the real party in interest as Qualcomm Incorporated.
App. Br. 2.
Appeal2017-011648
Application 14/706,203
We reverse. The decision does not address any issue concerning
subject matter eligibility.
BACKGROUND2
Appellants' invention relates to "arbitrating bus transactions on a
communications bus based on bus device health information and providing
power management for the communications bus." Spec. ,r 7. The
Specification describes a bus interconnect with a book keeping element
("BKE") that monitors the performance of master devices on the bus using a
"service contract," which specifies thresholds representing some quality of
service parameter (for example bandwidth or latency) for each master
device. Id. ,r,r 13, 31-35. According to the Specification, the BKE
compares the monitored performance of each master device to the service
contract and assigns a "health status" to that device based on how often the
service contract parameters are actually being met. Id. at ,r,r 35--46. The
health status information may then be used to arbitrate bus transactions
among the plurality of master devices by reordering or queueing bus
transaction commands. Id. ,r 33.
Claim 24, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject
matter:
24. A book keeping element configured to:
determine a service contract for a master device;
compare a service performance of bus transactions from the
master device arbitrated on a bus interconnect to the service
contract for the master device; and
2 Throughout this Decision we have considered the Specification filed May
7, 2015 ("Spec."), the Final Rejection mailed October 6, 2016 ("Final Act."),
the Appeal Brief filed March 9, 2017 ("App. Br."), and the Examiner's
Answer mailed June 27, 2017 ("Ans.").
2
Appeal2017-011648
Application 14/706,203
derive health information for the master device based on the
comparison of the service performance of the bus transactions
to the service contract for the master device, wherein the health
information indicates a percentage of the bus transactions from
the master device that met the service contract.
App. Br. 12 (Claims Appendix).
REJECTIONS
The Examiner rejected claims 24 and 27-59 under 35 U.S.C. I03(a)
as being unpatentable over Huang et al. (US 7,577,780 B2; Aug. 18, 2009)
in view of Tardleux et al. (US 2010/0115167 Al; May 6, 2010).
ANALYSIS
We have considered all of Appellants' arguments and any evidence
presented. We highlight and address specific findings and arguments for
emphasis in our analysis below.
Claims 24, 46, and 47
The Examiner rejects independent claims 24, 46, and 4 7 over a
combination of Huang and Tardieux. Final Act. 2-3, 11-13. Appellants
argue all three claims together. App. Br. 5-8. We focus on claim 24 as
representative.
The Examiner relies on Tardleux for the last limitation of claim 24:
"derive health information for the master device based on the comparison of
the service performance of the bus transactions to the service contract for the
master device, wherein the health information indicates a percentage of the
bus transactions from the master device that met the service contract." Final
Act. 3 (citing Tardleux ,r,r 8-11). According to the Examiner, Tardleux
discloses "monitor units 16 that continuously monitor the bandwidths of the
masters 14 with a moving window of time" and "compare unit 18 [, which]
compares the measured bus usage ... with a usage threshold." Id. at 20
3
Appeal2017-011648
Application 14/706,203
( citing Tardleux ,r,r 36-43). The Examiner additionally notes that"[ e Jach
master 14 [is] allocated a certain amount of usage of the shared bus," for
example, "masters 14a, 14b, and 14c may be allocated 50%, 30%, and 20%
respectively." Id.
Appellants argue that Tardieux does not disclose or suggest "wherein
the health information indicates a percentage of the bus transactions from the
master device that met the service contract" as required by the independent
claims. App. Br. 6. According to Appellants, "the cited portions of
Tardieux make no mention of deriving or relying on 'health information'"
and "only appear[] to track the 'percentage of the bus bandwidth allocated to
a corresponding master' (i.e., the 'bandwidth threshold'), and whether
'usage of a shared bus' is above or below the 'bandwidth threshold."' Id. at
7.
We agree with Appellants. Although Tardieux describes equivalent
functionality to the claimed "service contract" and "health information," the
Examiner does not point to any portion of Tardieux that describes "health
information indicates a percentage of the bus transactions from the master
device that met the service contract." Tardieux ,r,r 11-12, 36-37 (describing
predefined thresholds corresponding to each master device, which are
equivalent to a "service contract" and feedback information based on
monitoring of actual use of the bus by master devices compared to the
predefined thresholds, which is equivalent to "health information"). As
discussed above, the Examiner points to a series of percentages discussed in
Tardieux, but those percentages do not "indicate a percentage of bus
transactions from the master device that met the service contract." Final
Act. 20; Reply 23. Instead, those percentages indicate "a certain amount of
usage of the shared bus" by each particular master device. Id. ,r 43 ("Each
4
Appeal2017-011648
Application 14/706,203
master may be allocated a certain amount of usage of the shared bus 12. For
example, masters 14a, 14b, and 14c may be allocated 50%, 30%, and 20%,
respectively, of the bandwidth of the shared bus 12.").
For these reasons, we do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of
claims 24, 46, and 47. Because dependent claims 27--45 and 48-59 depend,
either directly or indirectly, from claims 24 and 4 7, their rejections suffer the
same problems as the rejections of the independent claims.
CONCLUSIONS
We conclude Appellants have demonstrated the Examiner erred in
rejecting claims 24 and 27-59 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
DECISION
We reverse the Examiner's rejection of claims 24 and 27-59.
REVERSED
5