Ex Parte Johnson et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 28, 2016

12753977 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 28, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
121753,977 04/05/2010
57299 7590 06/30/2016
Kathy Manke
A vago Technologies Limited
4380 Ziegler Road
Fort Collins, CO 80525
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Stephen Johnson
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.
L09-065lUS1 5806
EXAMINER
YIMER, GETENTE A
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2181
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/30/2016 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):
kathy.manke@broadcom.com
patent.info@broadcom.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte STEPHEN JOHNSON, TIMOTHY HOGLUND,
LARRY RA WE, NICK PELIS,
and BRAD BESMER
Appeal2015-001879
Application 12/753,977
Technology Center 2100
Before ST. JOHN COURTENAY III, THU A. DANG, and
ELENI MANTIS MERCADER, Administrative Patent Judges.
DANG, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
I. STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
Final Rejection of claims 1-20. 1 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
1 An after-final request for reconsideration was filed on October 29, 2013.
Appellants correctly indicate in the Appeal Brief (2): "No claim
amendments were filed subsequent to the final Office Action dated October
1, 2013. All previous amendments have been entered." Therefore, we find
no basis for the contradictory responses in Examiner's Advisory Action
(Nov. 25, 2013) that the amendment to the claims will not be entered
because it: (1) raises new issues, and then (2) will be entered on appeal,
because there were no newly amended claims to consider. Although a copy
Appeal2015-001879
Application 12/753,977
§ 6(b).
We affirm.
A. INVENTION
According to Appellants, the invention relates to accessing "handling
commands sent to target devices of a computer system" (Spec. i-f 1 ).
B. ILLUSTRATIVE CLAIM
Claim 1 is exemplary:
1. A method for controlling commands for a plurality of
target devices, the method comprising:
setting, in circuitry of a Fast Path Engine (FPE) hardware
controller of an initiator device, allowed queue depths of each
one of a plurality of target devices supported by the controller,
wherein said controller is configured to provide a hardware
automated input/ output path and wherein said circuitry
comprises a requestor block and a completer block:
monitoring the status of each one of said plurality of
target devices using circuitry of said hardware controller; and
for each one of said plurality of target devices, using
circuitry of said hardware controller to concurrently control
queuing of said commands on a per target device basis
according to the queue depth setting for the target device.
of the claims (included all previously entered amendments) was included
with the request for reconsideration filed on October 29, 2013, no new
amendments to the claims were presented. We note the Examiner also
(correctly) checked the box indicating the October 29, 2013 after-final
response was a request for reconsideration. See Advisory Action (Nov. 25,
2013).
2
Appeal2015-001879
Application 12/753,977
C. REJECTIONS
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Curcio
Chang
Born
US 2008/0267203 Al
US 7,805,543 B2
us 6,081,849
Oct. 30, 2008
Sept. 28, 2010
June 27, 2000
Claims 1-20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over the teachings of Curcio, Chang, and Born.
II. ISSUE
The principal issue before us is whether the Examiner erred in finding
that the combination of Curcio, Chang, and Born teaches or would have
suggested "setting, in circuitry of a Fast Path Engine (FPE) hardware
controller of an initiator device, allowed queue depths of each one of a
plurality of target devices supported by the controller" (claim 1 ).
III. FINDINGS OF FACT
The following Findings of Fact (FF) are shown by a preponderance of
the evidence.
Curcio
1. Curcio discloses a dynamic memory queue depth algorithm for
modifying a priority queue (allocated memory storage) configuration of a
network switch (Abst.; i-fi-f l-2), wherein a queue controller controls the
parameters (size, depth, etc.) of each priority queue in order to balance the
particular traffic and delivery needs of the network switch (i-f 18). In
particular, minimum and maximum priority queue depths are set (i-f 19).
3
Appeal2015-001879
Application 12/753,977
Chang
2. Chang discloses an architecture for hardware oriented host-side native
command queuing tag management which includes an initiator device, a
link, and a target device (col. 2, 11. 2--4), wherein suitable target devices
include a storage device (col. 2, 11. 15-21) and the initiator and target device
communicate/ exchange signals such as data transfer commands via a
controller (col. 2, 11. 33-37). The target device notifies the initiator device of
a supporting limited number of queued commands, for example, specifying a
queue depth "in word ... of identify device information" (col. 5, 11. 26-31 ).
IV. ANALYSIS
Appellants contend the claimed invention "requires an initiator device
having a controller, which in tum includes circuitry, and within that circuitry
queue depths for each target device are set," wherein the cited prior art "does
not account for this relationship between the queue depth and the target
device[r (App. Br. 6). In particular, although the Examiner finds that
"Curcio teaches setting of queue depths, unrelated to any target device, and
that Chang teaches target devices themselves," Appellants contend the
combination lacks "a chain of causation between the queue depths and target
devices, as claimed by Appellants" (id.). According to Appellants, "the
controller discussed in Curcio is associated with the memory of a network
switch, not a Fast Path Engine hardware controller, and the queues discussed
in Curcio are associated with the memory itself and have no relation at all to
target devices" (App. Br. 6-7). Appellants then contend "the queue depth in
Chang is set by the target device itself and that information is merely
conveyed to the controller, not the other way around" (App. Br. 7).
4
Appeal2015-001879
Application 12/753,977
We have considered all of Appellants' arguments and evidence
presented. However, we disagree with Appellants' contentions regarding the
Examiner's rejections of the claims. We agree with the Examiner's findings,
and are unpersuaded of error with the Examiner's conclusion that the claims
would have been obvious over the combined teachings.
As an initial matter, we note Appellants' contentions tum on whether
the prior art fails to account for the "relationship between the queue depth
and the target device[]" (App. Br. 6). However, the test for obviousness is
what the combination of Curcio and Chang (and Born) teaches or would
have suggested to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Merck & Co.,
Inc., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
As Appellants point out, the Examiner finds "Curcio teaches setting of
queue depths" (App. Br. 6). The Examiner finds, and we agree, "Curcio
discloses the controller monitoring a network parameter for adjusting the
priority queue configuration" (Ans. 7; FF 1 ). In particular, Curcio discloses
a dynamic memory queue depth algorithm for modifying an allocated
memory storage (priority queue) configuration, wherein a queue controller
controls the queue depth of each priority queue in order to balance the
particular traffic and delivery needs of the network switch (FF 1 ).
Accordingly, we find no error with the Examiner's reliance on Curcio for
teaching and suggesting "setting ... allowed queue depths" of each one of a
plurality of devices (allocated memory storage devices) "supported by the
controller," as required by claim 1.
Although Appellants contend that Curcio does not disclose queue
depths for "target devices," as Appellants point out, the Examiner relies on
Chang for teaching and suggesting queue depths for target devices (App. Br.
5
Appeal2015-001879
Application 12/753,977
6). In particular, Chang discloses an architecture for hardware oriented
queuing tag management including an initiator device and a target device
that communicate/ exchange signals such as data transfer commands via a
controller, wherein suitable target devices include a storage device having a
queue depth (FF 2). The Examiner finds, and we agree, "Chang discloses
communication between initiator and target device" wherein Chang
implicitly discloses that "each target device has different queue depth" (Ans.
6; FF 2). Accordingly, we find no error with the Examiner's reliance on
Chang for teaching and suggesting "target devices" (such as storage devices)
with set "allowed queue depths," as required by claim 1.
We also agree with the Examiner's conclusion that the references "are
analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor" that
"generally relate[] to a method [which] involves a priority queue
configuration ... "(Ans. 4). We also are unpersuaded of Examiner error in
concluding that it would have been obvious to combine the references "to
better utilize bandwidth of host channel, and reduce latency in servicing
queued commands on initiator services" (Ans. 4--5).
Although Appellants contend, the combination lacks "a chain of
causation between the queue depths and target devices, as claimed by
Appellants" (App. Br. 6), Appellants appear to view the combination in a
different perspective than that of the Examiner. As discussed above, the
Examiner relies on Curcio for teaching and suggesting a controller setting
the queue depth of storage devices (Ans. 6; FF 1 ), and relies on Chang for
teaching and suggesting that "target devices" encompass storage devices,
each of which comprises a queue depth (Ans. 6; FF 2). Thus, the issue here
is whether the ordinarily skilled artisan, upon reading Chang's teaching and
6
Appeal2015-001879
Application 12/753,977
suggestion that "target devices" with set "allowed queue depths" may
encompass storage devices (FF 2) and Curcio's teaching and suggestion of a
controller setting the queue depth of storage devices (FF 1 ), would have
found it obvious to include "setting, ... , allowed queue depths of each one
of a plurality of target devices supported by the controller" as required by
claim 1. Here, we agree with the Examiner's finding that the combination of
references teaches or would at least have suggested the contested claim
limitations.
The Supreme Court guides that the conclusion of obviousness can be
based on the background knowledge possessed by a person having ordinary
skill in the art. KSR Int 'l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007).
The skilled artisan is "[a] person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton."
Id. at 421. We agree with the Examiner that it would have been well within
the skill of one skilled in the art to combine Curcio and Chang (and Born).
That is, we agree Appellants' invention is simply a modification of familiar
prior art teachings (as taught or suggested by the cited references) that would
have realized a predictable result. See id.
We note that Appellants introduce new arguments in the Reply Brief
(Reply Br. 2-3). However, it is inappropriate for Appellants to discuss for
the first time in a Reply Brief matters that could have been raised in the
Appeal Brief. Because Appellants advance new arguments in the Reply
Brief without showing good cause, Appellants have waived such arguments.
See 37 C.F.R. § 41.41(b)(2).
Accordingly, Appellants have not shown the Examiner erred in
rejecting claim 1 and independent claims 8 and 13 falling therewith (App.
Br. 8) over Curcio, Chang, and Born. Appellants do not provide substantive
7
Appeal2015-001879
Application 12/753,977
separate arguments for dependent claims 2-7, 9-12, and 14--20 respectively
depending therefrom (id.), and, accordingly, claims 2-7, 9-12, and 14--20
also fall therewith.
V. CONCLUSION AND DECISION
We affirm the Examiner's rejections of claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a).
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 3 7 C.F .R. § 1.13 6( a )(1 )(iv).
AFFIRMED
8