Ex Parte EckertDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardOct 29, 201311821065 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 29, 2013) Copy Citation 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. 11/821,065 06/21/2007 Wieland Eckert 2006P07029US 5789 22116 7590 10/30/2013 SIEMENS CORPORATION INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY DEPARTMENT 170 WOOD AVENUE SOUTH ISELIN, NJ 08830 EXAMINER FENNEMA, ROBERT E ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2183 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 10/30/2013 PAPER 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. PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte WIELAND ECKERT ____________ Appeal 2011-004716 Application 11/821,065 Technology Center 2100 ____________ Before DEBRA K. STEPHENS, BRUCE R. WINSOR, and CATHERINE SHIANG, Administrative Patent Judges. SHIANG, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s final rejection of claims 10-13, 17-22, and 24-27. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. STATEMENT OF THE CASE The present invention relates to processing streaming data in a multiprocessor system. See generally Spec. 1. Claim 10 is illustrative: 10. A method for processing streaming data in a multiprocessor system having a pipelining architecture, comprising: Appeal 2011-004716 Application 11/821,065 2 inputting a plurality of data packets at an input time; distributing the plurality of data packets between a plurality of processors where the data packets remain during the processing; supplying programs to the plurality of processors by pipelining wherein individual programs are routed to individual ones of the plurality of processors in a time sequence so that each in the plurality of processors executes multiple programs on data packets which remain on that processor in accord with the time sequence; and outputting processed data packets at an output time. THE REJECTIONS Claims 10-13 and 17-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §102(b) as being anticipated by Catlin (U.S. 4,873,656). See Ans. 4-6. Claims 22 and 24-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Catlin and Official Notice. See Ans. 7-9. ISSUES 1. Under 35 U.S.C. § 102, has the Examiner erred by finding that Catlin discloses “supplying programs to the plurality of processors by pipelining wherein individual programs are routed to individual ones of the plurality of processors in a time sequence so that each in the plurality of processors executes multiple programs on data packets which remain on that processor in accord with the time sequence” as recited in claim 10? 1 2. Has the Examiner erred by rejecting claim 22 because claims 22 recites “a plurality of processors comprising a plurality of programs that process 1 Claim 10 (and similarly, claim 22) lacks antecedents for the recited “individual programs” and “multiple programs.” Appeal 2011-004716 Application 11/821,065 3 data packets associated with the plurality of medical images”? (Emphasis added). ANALYSIS Claim 10 On this record, we find that the Examiner did not err in rejecting claim 10. Appellant argues that Catlin does not disclose the disputed claim limitation. See App. Br. 6-10; Reply Br. 2-4. Appellant further argues that Catlin does not teach any form of pipelining. See App. Br. 10. Appellant also argues that Catlin does not teach the multiple programs that are executed on each processor are routed to the processor. See App. Br. 9-10. Appellant further contends that the rejections do not distinguish the recited data packets from the recited programs. See App. Br. 8. Appellant also argues that Catlin’s hardwired processors are hardwired and “[n]or is it clear that any information (data) is sent to the hardwired processors to program the processors.” See App. Br. 8; see also Reply Br. 4. We disagree with Appellant’s arguments. The Examiner correctly finds that Catlin teaches that the master processor distributes the circuit elements (mapped to the recited supplying programs) to be simulated to various processors (mapped to the recited plurality of processors). See Ans. 4-5, 14; Catlin, col. 2, ll. 35-39. We also adopt the Examiner’s reasoning and findings on page 14 of the Answer as our own. See Ans. 14. The Examiner further finds that Catlin teaches: Prior to each processing cycle, information [such as circuit elements] is passed along the unidirectional ring bus to the various module units in information packets. Appeal 2011-004716 Application 11/821,065 4 See Catlin, col. 2, ll. 43-45; see also Ans. 4-5. Thus, Catlin teaches that prior to each processing cycle (mapped to the recited in a time sequence), distributing the circuit elements to various processors by the ring bus (mapped to the recited by pipelining, wherein individual programs are routed to individual ones of the plurality of processors in a time sequence). See Ans. 4-5, 14-15. We also adopt the Examiner’s reasoning and findings on pages 11, 12, 14, and 15 of the Answer as our own. See Ans. 11-12, 14-15. Our interpretation of pipelining is also consistent with the Specification. See Spec. 2, ll. 1-14 and Spec. 7, ll. 7-15. The Examiner also finds that Catlin teaches: Once the input information for the various circuit elements are placed in to the various processors, computation of the various inputs associated with the circuit elements are computed for this given time cycle. The results of the computation determine the output from the various circuit elements and these are stored within the processors. The accelerator then is prepared to advance to the next time cycle to utilize the stored outputs as inputs to the next stage of the circuit. Catlin, 2:60-68 (emphases added); see also Ans. 4-5. Therefore, Catlin teaches that each in the the plurality of processors executes the circuit elements (mapped to the recited multiple programs) on the information input for the various circuit elements (mapped to the recited data packets which remain on that process) for this given time cycle (mapped to the recited in accord with the time sequence). See Ans. 4-5. Appeal 2011-004716 Application 11/821,065 5 Contrary to Appellant’s argument, the Examiner also correctly distinguishes the recited data packets from the recited programs: Catlin teaches the information input for the various circuit elements (mapped to the recited data packets) are distributed to the various processors by the ring bus. See Ans. 4-5; Catlin, 2:43-61. In contrast, as discussed above, the Examiner maps Catlin’s circuit elements to the recited programs. Finally, as pointed out by the Examiner, Appellant’s argument about “hardwired” processors do not negate the Examiner’s findings, as Appellant does not dispute that Catlin’s software processors are programmed. See Ans. 13. Catlin discloses that “[t]he actual number of HPs 32 and SPs [software processors] 31within a given module 22 is left to the design choice of the designer.” See Catlin, col. 7, ll. 51-53 (emphasis added); see also Ans. 13. Therefore, it is undisputed that Catlin’s software processors can be mapped to the recited plurality of processors. See Ans. 13. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 10. Claims 11-13 and 17-21 Regarding claims 11-13, Appellant has not presented sufficient evidence to persuade us of error. We disagree with Appellant’s arguments, and agree with the Examiner’s conclusions. We adopt the Examiner’s reasoning and findings as our own. See Ans. 5, 15. Regarding claim 17, for similar reasons discussed above with respect to claim 10, Appellant’s argument about program pipelining is unpersuasive. Further, Appellant asserts that “there is no disclosure of control over program pipelining by a control entity.” App. Br. 11. Appellant’s conclusory assertion has little persuasive weight. Cf. 37 C.F.R. Appeal 2011-004716 Application 11/821,065 6 § 41.37(c)(1)(vii) (2010) (“A statement which merely points out what a claim recites will not be considered an argument for separate patentability of the claim.”). We agree with the Examiner’s conclusions, and adopt the Examiner’s reasoning and findings as our own. See Ans. 5. Regarding claim 18, Appellant asserts that “[the rejection] presumes that the Catlin reference discloses a higher level control entity for program pipelining. It does not.” App. Br. 12. Appellant’s conclusory assertion does not amount to an argument, and has little persuasive weight: Appellant does not explain why that is the case, let alone show error in the Examiner’s rejection. We agree with the Examiner’s conclusions, and adopt the Examiner’s reasoning and findings as our own. See Ans. 5-6, 15. Appellant does not separately argue claim 19. Regarding claim 20, Appellant asserts that Catlin “does not refer to a time difference.” App. Br. 12. We find the conclusory assertion unpersuasive. Cf. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii). We note that the cited Catlin passage teaches time cycles and therefore, time difference. Appellant’s remaining assertion is also unpersuasive for the reasons stated by the Examiner. See Ans. 6, 16. We agree with the Examiner’s conclusions, and adopt the Examiner’s reasoning and findings as our own. See id. Regarding claim 21, Appellant does not present sufficient argument (see App. Br. 12) and therefore, has not persuaded us of error. We agree with the Examiner’s conclusions, and adopt the Examiner’s reasoning and findings as our own. See Ans. 6, 16. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 11-13 and 17-21. Appeal 2011-004716 Application 11/821,065 7 Claims 22 and 24-27 Claims 22 recites “a plurality of processors comprising a plurality of programs that process data packets associated with the plurality of medical images. . . .” (Emphasis added). 2 Appellant contends that one skilled in the art would not have been motivated to process medical images in Catlin’s device because Catlin implements an event driven simulation algorithm system that would not have been used for processing x-ray images. See App. Br. 13-14. We disagree with Appellant’s arguments, and agree with the Examiner’s conclusion. We adopt the Examiner’s reasoning and findings on pages 8 and 16-17 of the Answer as our own. See Ans. 8, 16-17. We highlight the Examiner does not rely on Catlin’s for teaching simulation. Although not relied on in affirming the rejection, we further note that Appellant’s arguments are unpersuasive because the recited “medical images” are non-functional descriptive material. The recited “medical images” merely label the data packets, and do not functionally affect the recited claim limitation of “a plurality of processors comprising a plurality of programs that process data packets” or the processing system itself. Therefore, the recited “medical images” are analogous to the instructions in In re Ngai. See In re Ngai, 367 F.3d 1336, 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (holding the instructions are non-functional descriptive matter). As a result, the recited “medical images” constitute non-functional descriptive material, and “will not distinguish the invention from the prior art in terms of patentability.” Id.; see also Ex parte Nehls, 88 USPQ2d 1883, 1887-89 2 Appellant does not contend that the preamble of claim 22 is limiting. Appeal 2011-004716 Application 11/821,065 8 (BPAI 2008) (precedential) (discussing cases pertaining to non-functional descriptive material). As to Appellant’s remaining arguments, for similar reasons discussed above with respect to claim 10, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 22, and claim 25, which Appellant does not separately argue. For similar reasons discussed above with respect to claims 12, 20, and 21, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 24, 26, and 27. DECISION The Examiner’s decision rejecting (1) claims 10-13 and 17-21 under 35 U.S.C. § 102, and (2) claims 22 and 24-27 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is affirmed. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv). AFFIRMED kis Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation