Ex Parte Katibian et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardMar 26, 201311285400 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 26, 2013) Copy Citation UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________________ Ex parte BEHNAM KATIBIAN and GEORGE ALAN WILEY ____________________ Appeal 2010-010814 Application 11/285,400 Technology Center 2100 ____________________ Before THU A. DANG, JAMES R. HUGHES, and GREGORY J. GONSALVES, Administrative Patent Judges. DANG, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2010-010814 Application 11/285,400 2 I. STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a Final Rejection of claims 1, 4-11, 15-21, 24-31, 33-39, 42-49, and 51-72 (App. Br. 4). Claims 2, 3, 12-14, 22, 23, 32, 40, 41, and 50 have been canceled (id.). We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. A. INVENTION Appellants’ invention is directed to a method and system that synchronizes the execution of commands transmitted by a baseband processor to a device, such as a camera, through Mobile Display Digital Interface (MDDI); wherein, the commands are executed in response to an independent event (Abstract). B. ILLUSTRATIVE CLAIMS Claims 1 and 57 are exemplary: 1. A method for synchronously executing a plurality of commands generated by a first module and executed at a second module, wherein the first and second modules communicate through a communication link, the method comprising: (a) generating the plurality of commands at the first module by a first processor; (b) transmitting the plurality of commands from the first module to the second module through the communication link, wherein the communication link represents a Mobile Display Digital Interface (MODDI) link, wherein the first module represents a baseband processor and the second module represents a camera module interface, wherein said baseband Appeal 2010-010814 Application 11/285,400 3 processor is disposed in a lower clamshell section of a mobile telephone and wherein said camera module interface and a Liquid Crystal Display (LCD) are disposed in an upper clamshell section of said mobile telephone, such that the Mobile Display Digital Interface (MDDI) interconnects the first and second modules across a hinge of said mobile telephone, and wherein a Mobile Display Digital Interface (MDDI) link control is integrated into each of said baseband processor and said camera module interface; (c) receiving the commands at the second module, and writing to registers associated with the commands; (d) scheduling the execution of the commands at the second module by associating the execution thereof with an independent event at the second module; and (e) synchronously executing the commands at the second module when the independent event at the second module is detected. 57. A storage media in the form of read-only memory, random access memory, magnetic disk storage media, optical storage media, or flash memory devices comprising program instructions which are computer-executable to synchronously execute a plurality of commands generated by a first module and executed at a second module, wherein the first and second modules communicate through a communication link, the storage media comprising: program instructions to generate the plurality of commands at the first module by a first processor; program instructions to transmit the plurality of commands from the first module to the second module through the communication link; Appeal 2010-010814 Application 11/285,400 4 program instructions to receive the commands at the second module, and writing to registers associated with the commands; program instructions to schedule the execution of the commands at the second module by associating the execution thereof with an independent event at the second module; and program instructions to synchronously execute the commands at the second module when the independent event at the second module is detected. C. REJECTIONS The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on appeal is: Wolff US 6,185,601 Bl Feb. 06, 2001 Fujii US 2003/0193576 Al Oct. 16, 2003 Zou US 2004/0199652 Al Oct. 07, 2004 Claims 57-60 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Wolff. Claims 1, 4-11, 15-21, 24-31, 33-39, 42-49, 51-57, 59-61, and 65-721 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Wolff in view of Zou and Fujii. Claims 61-64 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Wolff in view of Fujii. 1 Though Appellants list claims 13, 23, and 41 in the rejected claims, these claims have been canceled (App. Br. 4-5). Further, although claims 24, 31, 42, and 49 are omitted from the Appellants’ “Grounds of Rejection,” the Examiner’s Answer indicates that claims 24, 31, 42, and 49 have been rejected (Ans. 7 and 9). Appeal 2010-010814 Application 11/285,400 5 II. ISSUES The dispositive issues before us are whether the Examiner has erred in determining that: 1. Wolff teaches “program instructions to synchronously execute the commands at the second module when the independent event at the second module is detected” (claim 57, emphasis added); and 2. the combination of Wolff, Zou, and Fujii teaches or would have suggested “scheduling the execution of the commands at the second module by associating the execution thereof with an independent event at the second module” and “synchronously executing the commands at the second module when the independent event at the second module is detected” (claim 1, emphasis added). . III. FINDINGS OF FACT The following Findings of Fact (FF) are shown by a preponderance of the evidence. Wolff 1. Wolff discloses a method for load rebalancing by clients in a network; wherein, the client can re-map a path through a plurality of nodes to a resource (Abstract). 2. A command processing module 192 executes the requested I/O operation and determines whether this requested I/O operation is destined for an internally controlled resource or an externally controlled resource (col. 12, ll. 48-52). 3. A scheduling module 164 schedules the requested I/O operations (col. 17, ll. 6-7). Appeal 2010-010814 Application 11/285,400 6 IV. ANALYSIS Claims 57-60 Appellants contend that Wolff “does not teach the claimed element of ‘program instructions to synchronously execute the commands at the second module when the independent event at the second module is detected’” (App. Br. 18). Appellants assert that although Wolff discloses “modules such as a scheduling module … and a command processing module,” “the claimed functionality and the claimed elements are missing” (id.). However, the Examiner finds that Wolff discloses that the “event is determined at the second module when resource to which [the requested] I/O [operation] is directed is determined” (Ans. 15). We give the claim its broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the Specification. See In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054 (Fed. Cir. 1997). Claim 57 does not define what an “independent event” means, includes, or represents. Thus, we give “program instructions to synchronously execute the commands at the second module when the independent event at the second module is detected” its broadest reasonable interpretation as code that executes commands at the second module when an activity is detected, as consistent with the Specification and claim 57. Wolff discloses a system and method for load rebalancing by clients in a network; wherein, the system includes a command processing module that determines whether a requested I/O operation is destined for a resource (to be transmitted and associated with a resource) that is either internally controlled or externally controlled and executes the I/O operation (FF 1 and 2). We find that the command processing module comprises code that determines whether a requested I/O operation is destined for an internally or Appeal 2010-010814 Application 11/285,400 7 externally-controlled resource. In particular, we find that the command processing module comprises code that executes commands at a second module when an activity is detected. Accordingly, we find no error in the Examiner’s rejection of claim 57 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) over Wolff. Further, claims 58-60 (depending from claim 57), which have not been argued separately, fall with claim 57. Claims 1, 4-11, 15-21, 24-31, 33-39, 42-49, 51-57, 59-61, and 65-72 Appellants contend that “the claimed invention [requires] … execut[ion] [of] a real-time command precisely at the time it needs to happen due to an event that occurs” (App. Br. 20). Appellants argue that Wolff “is balancing a load in some kind of storage server or application server, which appears to be a completely different problem” (id.). Appellants contend further that “the Examiner merely makes the conclusory statement that the cited prior art teaches the claimed elements but failed to explicitly state or articulate his reasoning as to what he is equating with the claimed elements” (App. Br. 21). However, the Examiner finds that Wolff discloses “scheduling via [a scheduling module] 164 [which is] incorporated into the second module” and that an “event is determined at the second module when [the] resource to which [the requested] I/O [operation] is directed to is determined” (Ans. 6). Examiner notes that “that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., real- time execution of commands) are not recited in the rejected claim(s)” (Ans. 16). Appellants’ argument that “the claimed invention [requires] … execut[ion] [of] a real-time command precisely at the time it needs to Appeal 2010-010814 Application 11/285,400 8 happen due to an event that occurs” is not commensurate in scope with the specific language of claim 1 (App. Br. 20). In particular, claim 1 does not recite such “real-time command” execution as Appellants argue. As noted supra, Wolff discloses the command processing module which determines whether a requested I/O operation is destined for a resource or going to be transmitted and associated with a resource that is either internally controlled or externally controlled and executes the I/O operation (FF 1 and 2). Wolff also discloses a scheduling module that schedules the requested I/O operations (FF 3). We find that the scheduling of the requested I/O operations occurs when the command processing module detects an independent event (whether the I/O operations are destined for an internally or externally controlled resource). Accordingly, we find no error in the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Wolff in view of Zou and Fujii. Further, independent claims 11, 21, 28, 39, 57, and 65 having similar claim language and claims 4-10, 15-20, 24-27, 29-31, 33-38, 42-49, 51-56, 59-61 and 66-72 (depending from claims 1, 11, 21, 28, 39, 57, and 65), which have not been argued separately, fall with claim 1. Claims 61-64 Appellants argue that claims 61-64 (depending from claim 57) are patentable over the cited prior art for the same reasons asserted with respect to independent claim 57 (App. Br. 22). As noted supra, however, we find that the combination of Wolff, Zou, and Fujii at least suggests all the features of claim 57. We therefore affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claims 61-64 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Wolff Appeal 2010-010814 Application 11/285,400 9 in view of Fujii for the same reasons expressed with respect to parent claim 57, supra. V. CONCLUSION AND DECISION The Examiner’s rejection of claims 57-60 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) and claims 1, 4-11, 15-21, 24-31, 33-39, 42-49, 51-57, and 59-72 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) is affirmed. 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 peb Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation