Ex Parte Hoover et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardOct 28, 201412117906 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 28, 2014) Copy Citation UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________________ Ex parte RUSSELL D. HOOVER, ERIC O. MEJDRICH, PAUL E. SCHARDT, and ROBERT A. SHEARER Appeal 2012-0043851 Application 12/117,906 Technology Center 2100 ____________________ Before JEAN R. HOMERE, JEFFREY S. SMITH, and JOHNNY A. KUMAR, Administrative Patent Judges. HOMERE, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL 1 Appellants have identified the real party in interest as International Business Machines, Corp. App. Br. 1. Appeal 2012-004385 Application 12/117,906 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s Final Rejection of claims 1-20. App. Br. 2. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. Appellants’ Invention Appellants invented a method and system for processing a network on chip (NOC). Abst., Fig. 2 . Illustrative Claim Independent claim 1 further illustrates the invention. It reads as follows: 1. A method of data processing with a network on chip (NOC): wherein the NOC comprises integrated processor (‘IP’) blocks, routers, memory communications controllers, and network interface controller, each IP block adapted to a router through a memory communications controller and a network interface controller, each memory communications controller controlling communication between an IP block and memory, and each network interface controller controlling inter-IP block communications through routers, the method comprising: organizing the network into partitions, each partition including at least one IP block, each partition assigned exclusive access to a separate physical memory address space; assigning all IP blocks of a partition a partition identifier (‘partition ID’) that uniquely identifies for an IP block a particular partition in which the IP block is included; establishing one or more permissions tables associating partition IDs with sources and destinations of data Appeal 2012-004385 Application 12/117,906 3 communications on the NOC, each record in the permissions tables representing a restriction on data communications on the NOC; executing one or more applications on one or more of the partitions, including transmitting data communications messages among IP blocks and between IP blocks and memory, each data communications message including a partition ID of a sender of the data communications message; and controlling data communications among the partitions in dependence upon the permissions tables and the partition IDs. Prior Art Relied Upon Chen et al. US 7,533,154 B1 May 12, 2009 Rejection on Appeal The Examiner rejects claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being anticipated by Chen. ANALYSIS We consider Appellants’ arguments seriatim as they are presented in the Appeal Brief, pages 7-12.2 2 Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellants and the Examiner, we refer to the Appeal Brief (filed August 24, 2011), and the Answer (mailed October 19, 2011) for the respective details. We have considered in this decision only those arguments Appellants actually raised in the Briefs. Any other arguments which Appellants could have made but chose not to make in the Briefs are deemed to be waived. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii). Appeal 2012-004385 Application 12/117,906 4 Dispositive Issue: Under 35 U.S.C. § 102, did the Examiner err in finding Chen describes processing a network on chip (NOC), as recited in claim 1? Appellants argue Chen does not describe the disputed limitations emphasized above. Id. First, Appellants argue Chen’s disclosure of a network interface peripheral that can be implemented as a single chip controller (Chen 4:63- 5:10) does not describe the NOC including the various elements recited in the claim. App. Br. 8-10. That is, the network interface peripheral is merely a peripheral network device including various interface devices, as opposed to an actual network device that includes the elements recited in claim 1. Id. Second, Appellants argue while Chen discloses a plurality of descriptors used by a DMA controller to determine the memory location or outgoing frames of data, as well as to determine where to store incoming frames of data (Chen 4:10-13, 25:16-60, Figs. 2 & 5A), none of the descriptors is assigned for exclusive use by a single partition of a network chip. Id. at 10. Therefore, Appellants contend Chen’s disclosure of tracking the location of data to be sent and the open locations of where to store the data without mentioning segmenting the physical falls short of describing organizing the network into partitions, each including an IP block, and each partition being assigned exclusive access to a physical memory access address space. Id. Third, Appellants argue albeit Chen discloses pointers to the descriptors (Chen 5:56- 6:38), these pointers are merely references to locations in memory at which the corresponding descriptors reside. Id. at 11. Therefore, the pointers do not describe Appeal 2012-004385 Application 12/117,906 5 partition identifies assigned to IP blocks. Id. Fourth, Appellants argue even though Chen discloses assigning priority levels to queues, the priority levels merely identify which queues are visited first, as opposed to permission tables that associate partition IDs to sources and destinations of data communications on the NOC. Id. at 11-12. In response, the Examiner finds Chen’s disclosure describes the disputed limitations. Ans. 13-26. First, the Examiner finds irrespective of the difference in nomenclature, Chen’s disclosure of network interface peripheral system capable of being implemented as a single chip network controller (Fig. 2, item 102) describes the NOC. Ans. 14-15. In particular, the Examiner provides a detailed account of how each element in the network controller describes a corresponding element in the NOC. Id. at 17- 21. Based upon the established one-to-one element equivalency, the Examiner finds the network controller in Chen describes the NOC. Id. at 21. Second, the Examiner finds Appellants’ specification to be silent as to what constitutes a partition. Id. at 21. Therefore, the Examiner finds Chen’s disclosure of a higher level partition and a lower level partition, each partition having an IPSEC processor, its own FIFO (Chen 17:19- 18:4, Fig. 2) along with a plurality of descriptor rings (DR) where each DR is allocated to a separate physical memory address (Chen 3:7-20) describes organizing the network into partitions, each including an IP block, and a separate memory address. Id. 21-22. Further, the Examiner finds because the claim does not specify that the physical address space be internal or external, Chen’s disclosure of an input/output FIFOs being accessed by an IPSEC Appeal 2012-004385 Application 12/117,906 6 processor (Fig. 2, items 148, 152174a, 174b, 178a, 178b) describes that the FIFOs are exclusively accessed by a corresponding processor within each partition. Id. at 22-23. Third, the Examiner finds Chen’s disclosure of TX and RX to indicate the direction of data being transferred or received within each partition (Chen 17:19-21, 18:1-4) describes the identity of one the two partitions associated therewith. Id. at 23. Additionally, the Examiner finds Chen’s disclosure of further partitioning the RX and TX sections into multiple channels identified with associated queues and descriptors (Chen 3:7-20, Fig, 1E, 132, 133, Fig. 5B, 5C) describes uniquely identifying each partition. Id. at 24. Fourth, the Examiner finds because Chen’s disclosure of employing separate data queues for transfer of data of different priorities (Chen 22: 56-67) restricts the order of data transfer according to its assigned priorities, Chen describes restricting data in the network controller. Id. at 24-25. Further, the Examiner finds because the claim does not require partition IDs with sources and destination of data communications in the NOC, Chen’s disclosure of priority levels identifying which queues are serviced first describes a restriction in the controller. Id. at 25. Additionally, the Examiner finds Chen’s disclosure of a table (Fig 1I) illustrating receive priority selection in the system (Chen 3: 60-61, Fig E) describes including the priority levels in a table. Based upon our review of the record before us, we find no error with the Examiner’s anticipation rejection regarding claim 1. We note at the outset, as outlined above, the Examiner presented in the Answer various new findings in response to each argument raised by Appellants in the Brief. Appeal 2012-004385 Application 12/117,906 7 However, Appellants have neither objected to nor responded to rebut these specific findings made by the Examiner in the Response to Arguments section. Because Appellants have not availed themselves of the opportunity to challenge in a Reply Brief the Examiner’s construction of the disputed limitations, we find reasonable the Examiner’s broad construction of the disputed claim limitations. Further, while Appellants have provided rebuttal arguments to some of the findings previously made by the Examiner in the Final Office action, Appellants have not provided a meaningful analysis of the cited specific textual portions of Chen upon which the Examiner relies to reject claim 1. Although it only suffices that Appellants show a single reversible error in the Examiner’s rejection to rebut the prima facie case of anticipation, such rebuttal cannot be premised upon Appellants’ misapprehension of the Examiner’s findings. Merely reciting the claim limitations, and discussing findings other than those upon which the Examiner relied in the rejection is not a responsive argument. Such a response to the Examiner’s findings on this record is insufficient to persuade us of Examiner error, as mere attorney arguments and conclusory statements that are unsupported by factual evidence are entitled to little probative value. In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1470 (Fed. Cir. 1997); see also In re De Blauwe, 736 F.2d 699, 705 (Fed. Cir. 1984); Ex parte Belinne, No. 2009- 004693, slip op. at 7-8 (BPAI Aug. 10, 2009) (informative). See also In re Lovin, 652 F.3d 1349, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (“[W]e hold that the Board reasonably interpreted Rule 41.37 to require more substantive arguments in an appeal brief than a mere recitation of the claim elements and a naked Appeal 2012-004385 Application 12/117,906 8 assertion that the corresponding elements were not found in the prior art.â€); cf. In re Baxter Travenol Labs., 952 F.2d 388, 391 (Fed. Cir. 1991) (“It is not the function of this court to examine the claims in greater detail than argued by an appellant, looking for [patentable] distinctions over the prior art.â€) It therefore follows that Appellants have failed to show error in the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of claim 1. Because Appellants have not provided separate arguments against the rejection of claims 2-20, these claims fall with claim 1 for same reasons set forth above. See 37 C.F.R. § 1.37(c)(1)(vii). DECISION We affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-20, as set forth above. 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)(iv). AFFIRMED lv Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation