Ex Parte Fields et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Mar 1, 2011

11250022 (B.P.A.I. Mar. 1, 2011)

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.
11/250,022 10/13/2005 James S. Fields JR. AUS920050728US1 3916
45502 7590 03/02/2011
DILLON & YUDELL LLP
8911 N. CAPITAL OF TEXAS HWY.,
SUITE 2110
AUSTIN, TX 78759
EXAMINER
CYGIEL, GARY W
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2187
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/02/2011 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 BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte JAMES S. FIELDS JR., GUY L. GUTHRIE, JOHN T.
HOLLAWAY JR., and DEREK E. WILLIAMS
____________

Appeal 2009-009779
Application 11/250,022
Technology Center 2100
____________

Before HOWARD B. BLANKENSHIP, JOHN A. JEFFERY, and
ST. JOHN COURTENAY III, Administrative Patent Judges.

COURTENAY, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL1

1 The two-month time period for filing an appeal or commencing a civil
action, as recited in 37 C.F.R. § 1.304, or for filing a request for rehearing,
as recited in 37 C.F.R. § 41.52, begins to run from the “MAIL DATE”
(paper delivery mode) or the “NOTIFICATION DATE” (electronic delivery
mode) shown on the PTOL-90A cover letter attached to this decision.
Appeal 2009-009779
Application 11/250,022

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s final
rejection of claims 1-20, which are all the claims remaining in the
application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We Reverse.

Representative Claim
1. A method of data processing in a data processing system
including a requestor and a memory controller for a system
memory, said method comprising:

in response to receiving from the requestor a read-type
request targeting a memory block in the system memory, the
memory controller protecting said memory block from
modification;

in response to an indication that said memory controller
is responsible for servicing said read-type request, said memory
controller transmitting said memory block to said requestor;

prior to receipt of said memory block by said requestor,
said memory controller ending protection of said memory block
from modification and said requestor beginning protection of
said memory block from modification; and

in response to receipt of said memory block, said
requestor ending its protection of said memory block from
modification.

Prior Art
The Examiner relies upon the following reference as evidence in
support of the rejection:
Arimilli US 6,892,282 B2 May 10, 2005
Appeal 2009-009779
Application 11/250,022

3
Examiner’s Rejection
Claims 1-20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Arimilli.

ISSUE
Based upon our review of the administrative record, we have
determined that the following issue is dispositive of this appeal:

Under § 103, did the Examiner err in determining that Arimilli
would have taught or suggested a transfer of protection of the
memory block from the memory controller to the requester
prior to receipt of the memory block by the requestor, within
the meaning of independent claim 1? (See also the
commensurate limitations recited in independent claim 8).

FINDINGS OF FACT
In our analysis infra, we rely on the following findings of fact (FF)
that are supported by the record:
1. Arimilli teaches that the memory controller acquires a lock on
the destination memory location. (Col. 2, ll. 60-61).
2. Arimilli teaches that “[w]hen the cache line is invalidated, the
memory cloner initiates protection of the cache line and takes on the role of
a Modified snooper.” (Col. 17, ll. 50-52).

Appeal 2009-009779
Application 11/250,022

4
ANALYSIS
Appellants contend that the data moving technique of Arimilli fails to
disclose or render obvious the three distinct phases of protection explicitly
recited in claim 1: (1) protection by the memory controller; (2) transfer of
protection from the memory controller to the requestor; and (3) the requestor
releasing protection. (App. Br. 8-9).
In the “Response to Arguments” section of the Answer, the Examiner
finds that Arimilli teaches: (Phase 1) the memory controller protecting the
memory block (Arimilli, col. 2, ll. 55-61; see FF 1); and (Phase 2) a transfer
of protection from the memory controller to the requestor (i.e., “memory
cloner,” Arimilli col. 17, ll. 50-51; see FF 2). (Ans. 12-13).
At the outset, we observe that the Examiner relies on two disparate
portions of the Arimilli reference in support of the rejection. Column 2 of
Arimilli is found in the “Background of the Invention” section and column
17 is found the “Detailed Description” section. Appellants note the
Examiner’s reliance on these two different portions of the reference on pages
7-8 of the Brief.
While “[c]ombining two embodiments disclosed adjacent to each
other in a prior art patent does not require a leap of inventiveness” Boston
Scientific Scimed, Inc. v. Cordis Corp., 554 F.3d 982, 991 (Fed. Cir. 2009),
on this record we agree with Appellants that the Examiner has not
established that Arimilli teaches or suggests that the requestor (“memory
cloner”) begins protecting a memory and the memory controller ends
protection of the memory block prior to the receipt of the memory block by
the requestor, within the meaning of independent claims 1 and 8.
Appeal 2009-009779
Application 11/250,022

5
We find that the portions of Arimilli relied on by the Examiner (Ans.
12-13) teach that the memory cloner (i.e., requestor) initiates protection
when a cache line is invalidated (FF 2) but do not teach or suggest that the
memory controller (see FF 1) ends protection of a memory block prior to
receipt of the memory block, as required by the commensurate language of
claims 1 and 8.
Based upon our review of the record, we are in accord with
Appellants’ principal contention:
As should be apparent from the foregoing summarization
of the teaching of Arimilli, Arimilli teaches two contrary,
alternative techniques for performing a data move. In
one, a processor performs the data move through a
sequence of conventional read and write operations,
while a memory controller provides the coherency
protection. In the second, a memory cloner performs the
data move through a sequence of dataless write
operations and also provides the necessary coherency
protection. What is clearly absent from both of Arimilli's
data moving techniques and not suggested by either or
both of Arimilli's data moving techniques is a protection
scheme for a read-type request in which both a memory
controller and a requestor share the duty of protecting a
memory block from modification.
(App. Br. 8).

Regarding the similar limitations of independent claim 15, we find
persuasive Appellants’ argument, as follows:
That is, as disclosed at col. 18, lines 8-1 1, "The
associated memory controller signals the memory cloner
that the memory cloner needs to provide protection for
the cache line." In other words, the cache controller does
not provide any protection for the cache line, but merely
signals the memory cloner that it needs to protect the
Appeal 2009-009779
Application 11/250,022

6
cache line. Thus, it is clear that Arimilli does not disclose
a cache that "responsive to receipt of an indication that its
read-type request will be serviced by a memory
controller of a system memory, begins protection of a
memory block targeted by said read-type request from
modification" and "responsive to receipt of said memory
block, . . . ends its protection of said memory block from
modification," as recited in Claim 15.
(App. Br. 14).

For essentially the same reasons argued by Appellants in the Brief, as
discussed above, we find the Examiner erred in rejecting independent claims
1, 8, and 15. Therefore, we reverse the Examiner’s § 103 rejection of each
independent claim on appeal, as well as the § 103 rejection of each
associated dependent claim.

DECISION
We reverse the § 103 rejection of claims 1-20.

ORDER
REVERSED

rwk

DILLON & YUDELL LLP
8911 N. CAPITAL OF TEXAS HWY.,
SUITE 2110
AUSTIN, TX 78759