Ex Parte Fuks et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardMar 7, 201712623170 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 7, 2017) 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. 12/623,170 11/20/2009 Adam Fuks 81389069US01 5788 65913 7590 03/09/2017 Intellectual Property and Licensing NXPB.V. 411 East Plumeria Drive, MS41 SAN JOSE, CA 95134 EXAMINER HUISMAN, DAVID J ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2183 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 03/09/2017 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): ip. department .u s @ nxp. com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte ADAM FUKS and ROB COSARO Appeal 2016-007467 Application 12/623,1701 Technology Center 2100 Before ERIC S. FRAHM, JAMES W. DEJMEK, and SCOTT B. HOWARD, Administrative Patent Judges. HOWARD, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the final rejections of claims 1, 6—15, 17—23, 25, and 26. Claims 2—5, 16, and 24 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. Final Act. 13. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. 1 Appellants identify NXP B.V. as the real party in interest. App. Br. 1. Appeal 2016-007467 Application 12/623,170 THE INVENTION The disclosed and claimed invention is directed “to real time control systems and event processing unit architecture.” Spec. 11. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 1. A microprocessor configured to handle events, the microprocessor comprising: a pattern detector, comprising a plurality of bit slices, that is configured to monitor a plurality of external inputs for occurrence of at least one triggering event from a plurality of triggering events, wherein each bit slice of the plurality of bit slices monitors a single input of the plurality of external inputs for a triggering event from the plurality of triggering events; a memory, comprising an instruction store, that is configured to maintain a list of instructions for the microprocessor to retrieve; a state machine and operation code interpreter (SMOI) that is configured to retrieve and execute at least one instruction from the instruction store; and a clock that is configured to enable SMOI execution of a series of instructions, wherein the clock stops and halts further SMOI execution when the SMOI executes a halting command, and the clock restarts and resumes further SMOI execution when the clock receives a logical output from the pattern detector, wherein the SMOI is powered down until triggered to restart by the logical output from the pattern detector. REFERENCES The prior art relied upon by the Examiner as evidence in rejecting the claims on appeal is: Belt US 6,193,422 B1 Feb. 27,2001 George US 6,779,122 B2 Aug. 17,2004 2 Appeal 2016-007467 Application 12/623,170 REJECTIONS2 Claims 1, 6—11, 13, 14, 17—21, 25, and 26 stand rejected under Pre- AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over George. Final Act. 7— 10. Claim 12 stands rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over George, either alone, or in view of Belt. Final Act. 10-11 Claims 15 and 22 stand rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over George in view of Official Notice. Final Act. 11— 12. Claim 23 stands rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over George, Belt, and Official Notice. Final Act. 12—13. ANALYSIS We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellants’ arguments that the Examiner erred. In reaching this decision, we have considered all evidence presented and all arguments made by Appellants. We are not persuaded by Appellants’ arguments regarding claims 1, 6—15, 17—23, 25, and 26, and we incorporate herein and adopt as our own: (1) the findings and reasons set forth by the Examiner in the action from which this appeal is taken (Final Act. 7—13; Adv. Act. 2), and (2) the reasons and rebuttals set forth in the Examiner’s Answer in response to Appellants’ arguments (Ans. 4—8). We incorporate such findings, reasons, and rebuttals 2 In addition to the grounds of rejection set forth below, the Examiner also rejected various claims under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first and second paragraphs. Those rejections were withdrawn in the Answer. Ans. 2-4. 3 Appeal 2016-007467 Application 12/623,170 herein by reference unless otherwise noted. However, we highlight and address specific findings and arguments for emphasis as follows. Claims 1, 6—10, 13, 14, 17—21, 25, and 26 Appellants argue the Examiner stated that George “does not explicitly discuss a pattern detector but takes Official Notice.” App. Br. 9. Appellants argue because George teaches using “a long latency instruction having a fixed time period to ‘enter and exit a sleep mode, the reliance on Official Notice is improper and erroneous. Id. In the Reply Brief, Appellants argue the Examiner’s reliance on George column 5, lines 64—67 in the Final Action for the pattern detector was erroneous because it is not part of the background section otherwise relied on by the Examiner. Reply Br. 2. The Examiner finds George teaches all of the limitations except for the pattern detector in the background section. Final Act. 7—8; Ans. 4—5. The Examiner further finds George, when discussing the implementation of the invention, teaches the pattern detector recited in claim 1 of the instant application. Final Act. 9 (citing George 5:64—67); Ans. 5—7. The Examiner further finds that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have modified the product described in the background of George with the pattern detector taught at George column 5, lines 64—67. Final Act. 9; Ans. 5—7. We are not persuaded by Appellants’ arguments that the Examiner erred. First, contrary to Appellants’ arguments, the Examiner did not take Official Notice. Second, Appellants do not address the grounds relied on by the Examiner in the Appeal Brief. That is, although Appellants discuss the use 4 Appeal 2016-007467 Application 12/623,170 of long latency instruction to restart the IFU (Instruction Fetch Unit), Appellants do not address the Examiner’s reliance on George’s discussion of various functions, such as “a) an interrupt, b) a timer timing out, or c) a signal from a device external to the processor” for restarting the processor clock. Compare App. Br. 9—10 (citing George 3:55—56), with Final Act. 8 (citing George 5:64—67). Third, we are not persuaded by Appellants’ argument in the Reply Brief that the Examiner erred in relying on George column 5, lines 64—67. Because Appellants did not raise that argument in their opening brief and good cause has not been shown why it should be considered, we will not consider this argument. 37 C.F.R. §41.41(b)(2); Ex parte Borden, 93 USPQ2d 1473, 1474 (BPAI 2010) (Informative) (“[T]he reply brief [is not] an opportunity to make arguments that could have been made in the principal brief on appeal to rebut the Examiner’s rejections, but were not.”). Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1, along with the rejections of claims 10 and 19, which are argued on the same grounds (App. Br. 10), and claims 6—9, 13, 14, 17, 18, 20, 21, 25, and 26, which are not argued separately (App. Br. 12). Claim 11 Appellants argue the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 11 for substantially the same reason as set forth above regarding claim 1. App. Br. 11. That is, just as for claim 1, Appellants argue George relies on long latency instructions and not a pattern detector. Id. For the same reasons discussed above regarding claim 1, we are not persuaded by Appellants’ argument that the Examiner erred. 5 Appeal 2016-007467 Application 12/623,170 Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 11. Claims 12, 13, and 22 With respect to dependent claims 12, 13, and 22, Appellants merely contend because the claims depend from an allowable base claim, the rejections of the claims should be withdrawn. App. Br. 13—14. Because we determine that the rejection of the base claims (10 and 19) is not erroneous for the reasons discussed above, we sustain the rejections of these claims. Claim 23 Appellants argue the Examiner erred in relying on Official Notice that “looking up interrupt routine addresses in an IVT is well known” because George “uses a fixed time period to ‘enter and exit a sleep mode.’” App. Br. 15. The Examiner finds “that looking up interrupt routine addresses in an interrupt vector table (i.e., IVT) is well known and accepted in the art” and, therefore, takes Official Notice. Final Act. 12. The Examiner further finds a person of ordinary skill in the art would have modified George based on the Official Notice. Final Act. 12—13. Our reviewing court has held that an Appellant adequately traverses a finding of Official Notice where the appellant’s argument “contain[s] adequate information or argument” to create on its face “a reasonable doubt regarding the circumstances justifying the . . . notice” of what is well known to an ordinarily skilled artisan. In re Boon, 439 F.2d 724, 728 (CCPA 1971). Appellants have not stated why the Official Notice is not common knowledge or well-known in the art. Appellants’ argument that it is not 6 Appeal 2016-007467 Application 12/623,170 disclosed in a single prior art reference is not sufficient to show that the Examiner erred in taking Official Notice. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 23. DECISION For the above reasons, we affirm the Examiner’s decisions rejecting claims 1, 6—15, 17—23, 25, and 26. 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)(iv). See 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(f). AFFIRMED 7 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation