Ex Parte Hall et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 27, 2014

10415330 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 27, 2014)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte HOWARD HALL,
ILIA SOKOLINSKI, and
MILAN MERHAR
____________

Appeal 2011-010018
Application 10/415,330
Technology Center 2400
____________

Before ANTON W. FETTING, BIBHU R. MOHANTY, and
NINA L. MEDLOCK, Administrative Patent Judges.

MOHANTY, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal 2011-010018
Application 10/415,330

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The Appellants seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 of the final
rejection of claims 1-11, 23-30, and 33. We have jurisdiction under 35
U.S.C. § 6(b).

SUMMARY OF THE DECISION
We REVERSE.

THE INVENTION
The Appellants’ claimed invention is directed to digital information
processing and protocols for managing storage in digital networks (Spec.
1:14-16). Claim 1, reproduced below with the numbering in brackets added,
is representative of the subject matter on appeal.
1. In a digital processing system, a method of accelerating
processing of packets in a series of packets, the method comprising:
[1] establishing, within the system, a first protocol stack for
processing packets requiring exception processing, and a second
protocol stack for simplified processing of packets not requiring
exception processing,
[2] testing each packet in the series of packets to determine
whether a given packet requires exception processing,
[3] forwarding to the second protocol stack, as a function of the
testing, packets not requiring exception processing,
[4] forwarding to the first protocol stack, as a function of the
testing, packets requiring exception processing,
[5] maintaining state synchronization between the first and
second protocol stacks by exchanging control messages between a fast
path processing engine processing packets in the second protocol
stack and a slow-path processing engine processing packets in the first
protocol stack, and
Appeal 2011-010018
Application 10/415,330

3
[6] reducing processing volume or time in the slow-path
processing engine in response to the maintaining of state
synchronization.

THE REJECTIONS
The following rejections are before us for review:
1. Claims 1-8 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being
anticipated by Craft (US 2005/0071490 A1, pub. Mar. 31, 2005) (hereinafter
“Craft ‘490”).
2. Claims 9 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Craft ‘490 and Craft (US 2002/0091844 A1, pub. Jul. 11,
2002) (hereinafter “Craft ‘844”).
3. Claims 23-30 and 33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as being
unpatentable over Chmara (US 6,684,270 B1, iss. Jan. 27, 2004), Craft ‘490,
and Craft ‘844.

FINDINGS OF FACT
We find the findings of fact in the Analysis section below are
supported at least by a preponderance of the evidence1.

1 See Ethicon, Inc. v. Quigg, 849 F.2d 1422, 1427 (Fed. Cir. 1988)
(explaining the general evidentiary standard for proceedings before the
Patent Office).
Appeal 2011-010018
Application 10/415,330

4
ANALYSIS
The Appellants argue that the rejection of claim 1 as anticipated by
Craft 2005 is improper because the reference fails to disclose claim
limitations [2], [3], and [4], which require:
[2] testing each packet in the series of packets to determine
whether a given packet requires exception processing,
[3] forwarding to the second protocol stack, as a function of the
testing, packets not requiring exception processing, [and]
[4] forwarding to the first protocol stack, as a function of the
testing, packets requiring exception processing
(Br. 6). In contrast, the Examiner has determined that the cited claim
limitations are shown by Craft ‘490 at paragraphs [0019], [0021], and [0025]
(Ans. 4 and 13-14).
We agree with the Appellants. Here, the claim limitations cited by the
Appellants require: “testing each packet in the series of packets to determine
whether a given packet requires exception processing;” “forwarding to the
second protocol stack, as a function of the testing, packets not requiring
exception processing;” and “forwarding to the first protocol stack, as a
function of the testing, packets requiring exception processing.” (Emphasis
added). Thus, the claim requires forwarding each packet to a first stack or
second stack based upon a determination as to whether or not the packet
requires exception processing. Further, the claim requires that the “testing”
step of claim limitation [2] occur before the “forwarding” steps of claim
limitations [3] and [4] as both these steps occur “as a function of the testing”
as claimed.
Here, Craft ‘490 at the cited portions fails to show forwarding packets
that do not require exception processing to the second protocol stack as a
function of the testing, as required. Craft ‘490 at paragraphs [0019] and
Appeal 2011-010018
Application 10/415,330

5
[0021] describes fast-path processing packets that require exception
processing, but does not disclose forwarding the packets which do not
require exception processing to the second protocol stack as found by the
Examiner, because these packets are already stored at the same intelligent
network interface card/ communication processing device (INIC/CPD)
where they were received. Craft ‘490 paragraph [0018] shows that the
packets not requiring exception processing are instead forwarded to storage
35. While the data structure of this storage of packets might be considered a
stack, as it is a staging area for the packets to be further processed, there is
no state synchronization message passed between the exception processing
stack and the storage 35. The state message the Examiner cites as being at
Craft ‘490 paragraph [0056] is a connection state associated with data in the
stack, not the state of the stack itself.
Craft ‘490 at paragraph [0025] discloses forwarding packets for fast-
path processing; however, this portion of Craft ‘490 deals with exception
conditions that occur on a fast-path communication control block by passing
back or flushing to a host protocol stack, and does not relate to forwarding
packets that do not require exception processing, as claimed. As Craft ‘490
at the above cited portions fails to disclose these cited claim limitations, the
rejection of claim 1 and its dependent claims under this reference is not
sustained.
Claim 23 contains a similar limitation and the rejection of this claim
and its dependent claims is not sustained for the same reasons given above.
The rejection of claim 23 does not rely on Chmara and Craft ‘844 to address
the argued limitations similarly addressed above, and their addition to the
rejection does not cure the deficiency.
Appeal 2011-010018
Application 10/415,330

6

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
We conclude that Appellants have shown that the Examiner erred in
rejecting the claims as listed in the Rejections section above.

DECISION
The Examiner’s rejections of claims 1-11, 23-30, and 33 are reversed.

REVERSED

mls