Ex Parte Gohari et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 22, 2018

13940009 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 22, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/940,009 07/11/2013
15055 7590 08/24/2018
Patterson & Sheridan, L.L.P.
Qualcomm
24 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1600
Houston, TX 77046
UNITED ST A TES OF AMERICA
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Amir Aminzadeh Gohari
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.
123580US 2061
EXAMINER
LAMONT, BENJAMIN S
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2461
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/24/2018 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):
qualcomm@pattersonsheridan.com
P AIR_eOfficeAction@pattersonsheridan.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 AMIR AMINZADEH GOHARI, SHAILESH MAHESHW ARI,
SANDEEP URGAONKAR, ALOK MITRA, MOHAMMED M. RUMI,
V AIBHA V KUMAR, UPPINDER SINGH BABBAR,
THOMAS KLINGENBRUNN, BAO VINH NGUYEN,
MATHIAS KOHLENZ, GAUTAM SHEORAN, DAISUKE TERASAWA
and IAIN FINLAY
Appeal2018-002589
Application 13/940,009 1
Technology Center 2400
Before TERRENCE W. McMILLIN, KARA L. SZPONDOWSKI, and
SCOTT B. HOWARD, Administrative Patent Judges.
McMILLIN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the final
rejection of claims 1-84. Final Act. 1. We have jurisdiction under 35
U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.
1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is QUALCOMM
Incorporated. App. Br. 3.
Appeal2018-002589
Application 13/940,009
THE CLAIMED INVENTION
The present invention relates to "methods and apparatus for
offloading checksum processing." Spec. ,r 2. Independent claims 1, 18, and
29 are directed to methods; independent claims 34, 51, 62, 67, 70, and 73 are
directed to apparatus; and independent claims 7 6, 79, and 82 are directed to
computer program products. App. Br. 16, 19, 21, 22, 25, 27-32.
Claim 1, reproduced below, is representative of the claimed subject
matter:
1. A method of wireless communication, comprising:
exchanging, by a modem processor of a wireless device,
uplink and downlink packets with an application processor of the
wireless device, wherein the modem processor manages radio
functions of the wireless device;
performing, by the modem processor, at least partial
checksum processing for at least one of the uplink or downlink
packets based on a configuration; and
providing to the application processor checksum metadata
comprising one or more values indicating at least one of a
location within the at least one of the uplink or downlink packets
where the modem processor started the at least partial checksum
processmg.
REJECTIONS ON APPEAL
Claims 1-9, 11-14, 16, 18-22, 24--26, 29--42, 44--47, 49, 51-55, 57-
59, and 62-84 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as being unpatentable
over Emerson et al. (US 2006/0039468 Al; published Feb. 23, 2006)
("Emerson") and Wu et al. (US 2008/0279219 Al; published Nov. 13, 2008)
("Wu"). Final Act. 5.
2
Appeal2018-002589
Application 13/940,009
Claims 10, 15, 17, 23, 27, 28, 43, 48, 50, 56, 60, and 61 stand rejected
under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as being unpatentable over Emerson, Wu, and Ziai
et al. (US 6,976,205 Bl; issued Dec. 13, 2005) ("Ziai"). Final Act. 19.
ANALYSIS
Claim 1 recites "providing to the application processor checksum
metadata comprising one or more values indicating at least one of a location
within the at least one of the uplink or downlink packets where the modem
processor started the at least partial checksum processing."
The Examiner finds Emerson's DVR encoder engine providing CRC
( cyclical redundancy check) for the payload portion of a packet to the
processor informs the processor that the DVR has executed a partial
checksum beginning at the payload. Final Act. 6 (citing Emerson ,r,r 113,
116). According to the Examiner, Emerson's DVR encoder engine
providing CRC for the payload to the processor thereby teaches the claimed
providing checksum metadata comprising values indicating a location within
the packets where the modem processor started the checksum to the
application processor. Final Act. 6. Specifically, the Examiner finds
Emerson's storing of headers and payloads for each packet represents
locations within the packets, and Emerson's calculating of a CRC value for a
payload and loading the value "represents the CRC for the payload location
of the packet." Ans. 4 (citing Emerson ,r,r 112, 113, 116). We disagree with
this interpretation.
The claimed invention requires providing checksum metadata to the
application processor, and that the checksum data comprises values
indicating a location within the packets where the modem processor started
3
Appeal2018-002589
Application 13/940,009
the checksum processing. Appellants' Specification details an example, as
part of checksum offloading, where the "modem processor may be
configured to generate meta information ( e.g., checksum metadata or
checksum-related status) with a computed checksum value per packet, and
send it along with the packet to the application processor." Spec. ,r 55; see
also Spec. ,r 57. We find that the claimed "providing to the application
processor checksum metadata comprising one or more values indicating at
least one of a location within the at least one of the uplink or downlink
packets where the modem processor started the at least partial checksum
processing," in light of Appellants' Specification, requires offloading
checksum processing from an application processor to a modem processor
and is distinguished from Emerson's use of a DVR encoder engine for
packet processing.
Here, we agree with Appellants that Emerson merely teaches a
register storing a network header and payload for which a CRC is calculated.
App. Br. 12; Reply Br. 2-3. Specifically, we agree with Appellants that
Emerson's buffer storing a network header and payload for which CRC is
calculated does not teach or suggest "provid[ing] metadata including one or
more values that indicate a location in a packet where checksum processing
is started." App. Br. 12. As cited by the Examiner (Final Act. 6; Ans. 4),
Emerson teaches:
The transmission code 146 may notify the D VR encoder engine
1102 of the data payload field 1114 B size and location for the
data to be placed. The notification may include setting a register
with the starting location of the data payload field 1114 B along
with the maximum size. Further, the DVR encoder 1102
calculates a portion of the CRC field 1114C for the payload field
1114B and provides this value to the processor 64. The CRC
values for the payload field may be calculated by the verification
4
Appeal2018-002589
Application 13/940,009
function 1112 ... The processor 64 completes the calculation of
CRC field 1114C using the partial calculations of the CRC for
the network header field 1114A and the data payload field
1114B.
Emerson ,r 113 ( emphases added). We find Emerson teaches calculating a
checksum value (i.e., calculating a CRC field value), but does not teach
"values indicating at least one of a location within the at least one of the
uplink or downlink packets where the modem processor started the at least
partial checksum processing," as recited in claim 1. Thus, we disagree with
the Examiner's finding that Emerson teaches the argued limitation.
Because we agree with at least one of the arguments advanced by
Appellants regarding claim 1, we need not reach the merits of Appellants'
other arguments.
Accordingly, we will not sustain the Examiner's§ 103(a) rejections of
independent claim 1, as well as commensurate independent claims 18, 29,
34, 51, 62, 67, 70, 73, 76, 79, and 82, and dependent claims 2-17, 19-28,
30-33, 35-50, 52---61, 63---66, 68, 69, 71, 72, 74, 75, 80, and 81.
DECISION
The Examiner's rejections of claims 1-84 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
are reversed.
REVERSED
5