Ex Parte Glenn et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Feb 28, 2012

10225329 (B.P.A.I. Feb. 28, 2012)

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.
10/225,329 08/21/2002 Scott C. Glenn P13623 2371
45209 7590 02/28/2012
MISSION/BSTZ
BLAKELY SOKOLOFF TAYLOR & ZAFMAN LLP
1279 OAKMEAD PARKWAY
SUNNYVALE, CA 94085-4040
EXAMINER
UNELUS, ERNEST
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2181
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/28/2012 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 SCOTT C. GLENN, NICHOLAS J. KOHOUT, and
BRIAN R. MEARS
________________

Appeal 2010-002318
Application 10/225,329
Technology Center 2100
________________

Before BRADLEY W. BAUMEISTER, ERIC B. CHEN, and
STANLEY M. WEINBERG, Administrative Patent Judges.

WEINBERG, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2010-002318
Application 10/225,329

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Summary
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s final
rejections of claims 1-28:
Claims 1-20, 22, 23, and 25-27 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(e) as being anticipated by Bauman (US 6,279,098 B1; Aug. 21, 2001).
Claims 21 and 28 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Bauman in view of Bastiani (US 6,636,922 B1; Oct. 21,
2003).
Claim 24 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Bauman in view of Zamer (US 6,944,733 B2; Sep. 13,
2005).
We affirm.
The Claimed Invention
Independent claim 1, representative of the claimed invention,1 reads as
follows:
1. A digital processor comprising:
an output register to store output control information; and
a controller programmed to transmit said output control
information in a serial stream to another digital processor in
response to a change in value of at least one bit of said output
control information in said output register.

1 Appellants argue claims 1-20, 22, 23, and 25-27 together as a group. See
Appellants’ Amended Appeal Brief 7-8 (filed July 6, 2009) (“App. Br.”).
Accordingly, we select independent claim 1 as representative of this group.
See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii).
Appeal 2010-002318
Application 10/225,329

3
ANALYSIS
I.
Appellants argue Bauman does not disclose a processor transmitting
to another processor. Instead, Appellants contend that although Bauman
discusses communicating information between partitions, there is no
indication that Bauman’s partitions equate to processors (App. Br. 7). We
find this argument unpersuasive.
The Examiner finds that Bauman states that “‘[t]he storage controller
126 of the first partition 122 may include an I/O ASIC [Input/Output
Application Specific Integrated Circuit] 168’” (Ans.2 15-16 (citing Bauman,
col. 7, ll. 56-57)). The Examiner finds that controller 126, which is inside
partition 122, was considered as a processor in the art and that an ASIC was
known in the art as a processor (Ans. 16). Appellants do not dispute these
findings (see App. Br. 7-8). The Examiner also notes that Bauman’s system
controller “maintains overall control over the partitioning of the system. . . .
[A] number of processors within the system may be allocated to a first
partition while the remaining processors may be allocated to a second
partition” (Ans. 16 (citing Bauman, col. 2, ll. 26-36)). Bauman also states
that that invention “relates to multiple-processor systems which utilize
partitioning schemes” (col. 1, ll. 25-27), thereby indicating that a partition is
part of a processor. Finally, Appellants admit that a processor may be an
ASIC (Spec. 2:25-28).

2 Throughout this Decision, we reference the Examiner’s Answer that was
mailed October 15, 2009.
Appeal 2010-002318
Application 10/225,329

4
Since each of Bauman’s partitions 120, 122 in Figure 4 includes at
least an I/O ASIC that transmits partitioning information (col. 8, ll. 14-15),
we find that each of Bauman’s partitions include processors.
II.
Appellants next argue that the Examiner misinterprets the meaning of
the phrase “to transmit said output control information . . . in response to a
change in value of at least one bit of said output control information” (App.
Br. 8). Appellants specifically argue that transmission of information “in
response to” means the transmission is triggered by a change in the
information to be transmitted (App. Br. 7-8).
We understand Appellants’ interpretation of the claim to be that only a
change in value of the output control information can cause data
transmission; that is, only a change in value can cause the controller to be
energized; or, only a change in value can trigger the operation of the
controller. However, the claim does not use “trigger,” and the claim is not
limited to the situation where only a change in value of the output control
information can cause data transmission. The claim language “in response
to a change in value” is broad enough to encompass a controller
continuously transmitting data, some of which is constant data and some of
which is changing data. Accordingly, where the controller continuously
transmits data, the controller alternately transmits data both “in response to”
no changes in data, as well as “in response to” changes in data.
In Bauman, information is continuously transmitted from the local
partitioning controller to the remote partitioning controller (col. 4, ll. 3-17).
Accordingly, we agree with the Examiner’s claim interpretation and finding
that Bauman’s controller 126 transmits output control information to another
Appeal 2010-002318
Application 10/225,329

5
processor in response to a change in value of at least one bit in the SCI to
SCI shift logic block 252 (Ans. 3-4).
III.
Appellants also disagree with the Examiner’s interpretation of the
claim language “in response to a change in value of at least one bit . . . in
said output register” (App. Br. 8) (emphasis added). The Examiner states
that “according to the claim language, the change doesn’t have to take place
inside the output register” (Ans. 16). Appellants contend, however, that the
plain language of each independent claim requires that the changes take
place in the output register (App. Br. 8).
We understand the Examiner’s position to be that the claim language
does not require that the output register, itself, be the component that
initiates a change in data; but rather, that the claim language merely requires
data in the output register to change, regardless of what component may
initiate the change. As explained above, we agree with the Examiner’s
finding that at least one bit in the SCI to SCI shift logic block 252 changes
value, thereby meeting the claim language (Ans. 3-4, 16).
For the foregoing reasons, Appellants have not persuaded us of error
in the Examiner’s anticipation rejection of representative claim 1.
Accordingly, we will sustain the Examiner’s rejection of that claim, as well
as of claims 2-20, 22, 23, and 25-27, which are not separately argued.
With respect to the remaining rejections of dependent claims 21, 24,
and 28, Appellants provide no patentability arguments directed to the
additional references of Bastiani for claims 21 and 28 or to Zamer for claim
24. Rather, Appellants state that claims 21, 24, and 28 stand or fall with
Appeal 2010-002318
Application 10/225,329

6
independent claim 15 (App. Br. 9). For the reasons discussed above, then,
we also sustain the rejections of claims 21, 24, and 28.

DECISION
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-28 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). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(1)(iv) (2010).

AFFIRMED

babc