Ex Parte Gowravaram et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 23, 2016

13285833 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 23, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/285,833 10/31/2011
85197 7590 09/27/2016
Brocade
c/o Blank Rome LLP
717 Texas Avenue, Suite 1400
Houston, TX 77002
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Krishnakumar Gowravaram
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.
112-0676US 7716
EXAMINER
BARTELS, CHRISTOPHER A
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2184
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/27/2016 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):
klutsch@counselip.com
acollins@blankrome.com
houstonpatents@blankrome.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte KRISHNAKUMAR GOWRA V ARAM,
RAMKUMAR V ADIVELU, VARGHESE KALLARACKAL,
and VINODH RA VINDRAN
Appeal2015-005456
Application 13/285,833
Technology Center 2100
Before JOSEPH L. DIXON, JAMES R. HUGHES, and ERIC S. FRAHM,
Administrative Patent Judges.
HUGHES, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal2015-005456
Application 13/285,833
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a rejection of claims
1-16 and 18-29, which constitute all of the claims pending in this
application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm-in-part.
The invention relates to "online path diagnostics in a switch fabric"
(Spec. i-f 1 ). Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject
matter:
1. A host device comprising:
a memory containing a diagnostic buffer and at least one
application buffer; and
a network adapter card coupled to said memory, said
network adapter card including a first external port and at least
two DMA channels, said at least two DMA channels capable of
transmitting data in a same direction concurrently;
wherein a first DMA channel of the at least two DMA
channels is coupled to said diagnostic buffer and at least one
DMA channel is coupled to said application buffer, said network
adapter card coupling said first external port and said at least two
DMA channels to allow concurrent data transfer.
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Bauman et al.
Saraiya et al.
US 2003/0231593 Al
US 2013/0117621 Al
2
Dec. 18, 2003
May 9, 2013
Appeal2015-005456
Application 13/285,833
REJECTIONS
The Examiner made the following rejections:
Claims 26-29 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C § 112, second paragraph,
as being indefinite.
Claims 18 and 23 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C § 102(b) as being
anticipated by Saraiya.
Claims 26-29 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C § 102(b) as being
anticipated by Bauman.
Claims 1-16, 19-22, 24, and 25 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Saraiya and Bauman.
ANALYSIS
The Indefiniteness Rejection
The Examiner finds claims 26-29 indefinite because there is
insufficient antecedent basis for the claim 26 limitation "said first external
port" (Final Act. 3). "Appellants agree to amend these claims to remove this
rejection once the prior art rejections have been reversed" (App. Br. 21 ). In
the absence of arguments traversing the indefiniteness rejection, we are not
persuaded the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 26-29.
The Anticipation Re} ections
Claims 18 and 23
The Examiner finds that Saraiya's claims 4 and 5 and Saraiya's Fig.
lB disclose the limitations of Appellants' claim 18, and that Saraiya's claim
10 discloses the limitations of Appellants' claim 23 (Final Act. 6-8). Also,
in an interview prior to the Final Action, the Examiner "cited Figure 6 and
3
Appeal2015-005456
Application 13/285,833
the virtual egress/ingress modules 608 and 609 respectively as the diagnostic
buffers while HT interface 602 (also figure 6) as the application buffer"
(Interview, Jan. 8, 2014).
Appellants contend Sarai ya' s HT Interface 602 is not an "application
buffer" as recited in claims 18 and 23 because it is "simply an interface, not
a buffer in memory and most definitely not an application buffer" (App. Br.
16). We agree with Appellants.
First, the Examiner's Final Action fails to provide any mapping of
Appellants' claimed "diagnostic buffer" and "at least one application buffer"
to specific features in Saraiya. Rather, the Final Action merely cites to claim
numbers in Saraiya for these limitations (see Final Act. 6-8). Second, even
if we consider the more specific findings in the interview, which pre-dates
the Final Action, we agree with Appellants that Saraiya's HT Interface 602
is merely an interface, not a buffer (App. Br. 16). Notably, the Examiner's
Answer does not provide a specific response to Appellants' arguments with
respect to claims 18 and 23 (see Ans. 2-5).
We are, therefore, constrained by the record to find the Examiner
erred in rejecting independent claims 18 and 23.
Claims 26--29
Appellants contend Bauman does not disclose "two concurrent data
flows, let alone disclos[ e] that a diagnostic buffer, network adapter card,
application buffer and an external port are configured to allow such data
flow" (App. Br. 13).
We agree with Appellants that Bauman fails to disclose two buffers
that "allow at least two concurrent data flows," as recited in claim 26. The
Examiner finds Bauman' s shaping tables 440 meets the limitation of "a
4
Appeal2015-005456
Application 13/285,833
diagnostic buffer," and Bauman's interface-specific queue banks 452 meets
the limitation of "at least one application buffer" (Final Act. 4; Ans. 3).
Even if we were to agree with the Examiner that the shaping tables 440 and
interface-specific queue banks 452 disclose the claimed buffers, the
Examiner has not shown that these alleged buffers allow concurrent data
flows. As disclosed in Bauman's Figure 4, the shaping tables 440 are part of
the type-specific shaping and scheduling engine 424 (Bauman, i-f 39) and the
interface-specific queue banks 452 are part of the interface-specific shaping
and scheduling engine 426 (Bauman, i-f 47). Bauman describes the flow of
packets through the type-specific and interface-specific portions of
Bauman's system as follows:
The two stage rate shaping and scheduling system and method
involves initially queuing incoming packets into type-specific
queues and applying individual rate shaping rules to each type-
specific queue. A first stage arbitration is performed to
determine how contending traffic is queued from the type-
specific queues to interface-specific queues. Packets that win
arbitration and pass the applied rate shaping rules are queued into
the interface-specific queues. Rate shaping rules are then applied
to the interface-specific queues.
(Bauman, i-f 33). Accordingly, the shaping tables 440, which are part of the
type-specific shaping and scheduling engine, and the interface-specific
queue banks 452, which are part of the interface-specific shaping and
scheduling engine, are in first and second sequential stages of Bauman's
system. Therefore, because elements 440 and 452 are in sequence, the
Examiner has not shown different buffers in Bauman that "allow at least two
concurrent data flows" as claimed.
We are, therefore, constrained by the record to find the Examiner
erred in rejecting independent claim 26, independent claim 28 which recites
5
Appeal2015-005456
Application 13/285,833
commensurate limitations, and dependent claims 27 and 29 for similar
reasons.
The Obviousness Rejection
Claims 1-16
Appellants contend Saraiya fails to teach a "diagnostic buffer" and an
"application buffer," as recited in claim 1 (App. Br. 18). Appellants further
contend that the combination of Sarai ya and Bauman fails to disclose two
DMA channels coupled to the diagnostic buffer and application buffer,
respectively, and that the two DMA channels are "capable of transmitting
data in a same direction concurrently," as also recited in claim 1 (App. Br.
18-21 ). We agree with Appellants.
In the response to Appellants' arguments, the Examiner references
findings made during the interview that Saraiya's VEGR 608 and VING 609
elements meet the limitation of the claimed "diagnostic buffer," and that
Saraiya's HT Interface 602 element meets the limitation of the claimed
"application buffer" (Ans. 5; Interview, Jan. 8, 2014). However, as
discussed above with respect to claim 18, Sarai ya' s HT Interface 602 does
not disclose an "application buffer."
Further, the Examiner has not shown the combination of Saraiya and
Bauman discloses the claim 1 limitation "at least two DMA channels
capable of transmitting data in a same direction concurrently," where the
two DMA channels are respectively coupled to the diagnostic and
application buffers. The Examiner relies on Saraiya for teaching two DMA
channels that operate concurrently, and relies on Bauman for teaching
concurrent transmission in a same direction (Ans. 10-11). However, we
agree with Appellants (App. Br. 18-19) that the Examiner has not shown the
6
Appeal2015-005456
Application 13/285,833
paths 115 and 118 in Figure 1 B of Sarai ya, which are relied upon to teach
the two DMA channels (Final Act. 10), are connected to respective
diagnostic and application buffers as required by claim 1.
We are, therefore, constrained by the record to find the Examiner
erred in rejecting independent claim 1, independent claims 5, 10, and 14, and
dependent claims 2--4, 6-9, 11-13, 15, and 16 for similar reasons.
Claims 19-22, 24, and 25
The Examiner has not shown the addition of the Bauman reference
cures the deficiency of Sarai ya discussed above with respect to independent
claims 18 and 23, from which claims 19-22, 24, and 25 depend. We are,
therefore, constrained by the record to find the Examiner erred in rejecting
claims 19-22, 24, and 25.
CONCLUSIONS
Under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, the Examiner did not err in
rejecting claims 26-29.
Under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b), the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 18,
23, and 26-29.
Under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a), the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1-
16, 19-22, 24, and 25.
DECISION
For the above reasons, the Examiner's rejections of claims 1-16 and
18-25 are reversed, and the Examiner's rejection of claims 26-29 under 35
U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, is affirmed.
7
Appeal2015-005456
Application 13/285,833
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).
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
8