Ex Parte Kannan

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jan 21, 2015

12144972 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 21, 2015)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
______________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
______________

Ex parte SHIVKUMAR KANNAN
______________

Appeal 2012-004497
Application 12/144,972
Technology Center 2100
______________

Before JEFFREY S. SMITH, STANLEY M. WEINBERG, and
JOHNNY A. KUMAR, Administrative Patent Judges.

KUMAR, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the
Examiner’s final rejection of claims 1–20. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.

Appeal 2012-004497
Application 12/144,972

2

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant’s invention relates to a system and method for decreasing
system management data access time. Abstract.
Claim 1 is exemplary with disputed language highlighted:
1. A system, comprising:
a cache memory that stores system management
information provided by a device, the system management
information is partitioned into a first portion and a second
portion; and
a cache memory refresh controller that updates the
system management information stored in the cache memory;
wherein the cache refresh controller refreshes the first
portion after expiration of a pre-determined refresh time
interval, and refreshes the second portion each time the second
portion is accessed;
wherein the cache refresh controller refreshes a system
management information of either of the first and second
portions by retrieving a fresh value from the device and writing
the fresh value to the cache in place of the system management
information.

The Examiner’s Rejections
The Examiner rejected claims 1, 2, 5–11, and 14–20 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Wall (US 2006/0100997 A1, May 11,
2006) and Feiertag (US 6,772,203 B1, Aug. 3, 2004). Ans. 4–13.
The Examiner rejected claims 3 and 12 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Wall, Feiertag, and King (US 2007/0245090 A1,
Oct. 18, 2007). Ans. 13–15.
Appeal 2012-004497
Application 12/144,972

3

The Examiner rejected claims 4 and 13 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Wall, Feiertag, and Yin (US 2008/0033972 A1,
Feb. 7, 2008). Ans. 15–17.
ANALYSIS
We adopt as our own (1) the findings and reasons set forth by the
Examiner in the action from which this appeal is taken and (2) the reasons
set forth by the Examiner in the Examiner’s Answer in response to
Appellant’s Appeal Brief. Ans. 17–25. We highlight and address specific
findings and arguments for emphasis as follows.
Appellant contends Feiertag fails to teach or suggest refreshing “the
second portion each time the second portion is accessed,” as recited in
independent claim 1. App. Br. 12–13.
Claims 1, 10, and 18 are independent—they have the disputed feature
(refreshes the second portion each time the second portion is accessed).
The Examiner cited Feiertag (col. 10, ll. 44–47) for the disputed
feature. Ans. 6, 18. The Examiner finds (Ans. 18), and we agree, Feiertag
teaches, “For example, if the data object stored in dynamic application cache
server 106 is considered expired (i.e., the time-to-live period for the 45 data
object is expired), dynamic application cache server 106 updates/changes
the data object the next time a request is received.” Feiertag, col. 10, ll. 42–
47 (emphasis ours). The Examiner also finds “a person of ordinary skill in
the art having considered the reference as a whole would conclude that a
system operated according to Feiertag would refresh information that
changes frequently (see e.g., Feiertag COL 10 LINES 50-65: ‘stock quotes’)
and is associated with a high user freshness value (e.g., 100%).” Ans. 18.
Appeal 2012-004497
Application 12/144,972

4

We concur with the Examiner’s conclusion that Wall in combination
with Feiertag teaches or suggests Appellant’s claimed invention (id. at 6).
We note Appellant’s arguments addressing the teachings of Feiertag (App.
Br. 11–12; Reply Br. 3), but, because Appellant does not explain how
Feiertag’s updating would be different from the Appellant’s claimed
refreshing to one skilled in the art, these arguments are not persuasive of
Examiner error.
With respect to dependent claims 4 and 13, Appellant argues these
claims are patentable due to their dependency on their respective
independent claims (App. Br. 16). Thus, as we sustained the rejection of
claims 1 and 10, we also sustain the rejection of claims 4 and 13, dependent
therefrom.
Appellant provided additional arguments with respect to the
patentability of dependent claims 2, 3, 8, 11, 12, 14, 19, and 20 (App. Br.
14–16). The Examiner has rebutted each of those arguments in the Answer
by a preponderance of the evidence (Ans. 22–25). We agree with the
Examiner’s findings and underlying reasoning and adopt them as our own.
We have considered Appellant’s Reply Brief but find it unpersuasive
to rebut the Examiner’s responses. Consequently, we conclude there is no
reversible error in the Examiner’s rejections of claims 1–4, 8, 10–14, and
18–20, and claims 5–7, 9, and 15–17, not argued separately.
DECISION
The Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 1, 2, 5–11, and 14–20
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Wall and Feiertag.
The Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 3 and 12 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Wall, Feiertag, and King.
Appeal 2012-004497
Application 12/144,972

5

The Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 4 and 13 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Wall, Feiertag, and Yin.
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

msc