Ex parte Khalidi et al.

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Feb 28, 2002

08780790 (B.P.A.I. Feb. 28, 2002)

1
The opinion in support of the decision being entered today was not
written for publication and is not binding precedent of the Board.
Paper No. 28
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________
Ex parte YOUSEF A. KHALIDI and MOTI N. THADANI
____________
Appeal No. 1999-2252
Application No. 08/780,790
____________
ON BRIEF
____________
Before FLEMING, GROSS, and DIXON, Administrative Patent
Judges.
FLEMING, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is an appeal from the final rejection of claims 1-
11, 13-14, and 16-22, all of the claims pending in the present
application. Claims 12 and 15 have been canceled. The
invention relates to a computer system (figure 2, item 100;
specification, page 6, lines 10-12, and page 7, lines 14-16)
supporting data transfers without copying unmodified data
Appeal No. 1999-2252
Application 08/780,790
2
(figure 2, item 270) between a memory object (figure 2, item
125) associated with a fast buffer (figure 2, item 115) and a
sink device (figure 2, item 130). The computer system
comprises a processor (figure 2, item 160; specification, page
6, lines 21-22), a main memory (figure 2, item 110), a source
(figure 2, item 120), and a sink (figure 2, item 130). The
main memory comprises an application instructions storage
(figure 2, item 180; specification, page 6, lines 12-19), an
operating system instructions storage (figure 2, item 170),
and a fast buffer (figure 2, item 115). The source comprises
a memory object (figure 2, item 125). A buffer mapping
(figure 1, item 140) establishes an association between the
memory object and the fast buffer.
When the data are not modified, the memory object is
transferred from the source to the sink via a first data path
data transfer (figure 1, item 150; specification, page 6,
lines 22-23). When the data are partially modified, the data
are transferred from the source to the sink via two data
paths. A first data path (figure 2, item 270) is used for
unmodified data and a second path (figure 2, item 250) is used
for modified data. The unmodified data path transfers data
Appeal No. 1999-2252
Application 08/780,790
3
directly from the memory object to the sink. The modified
data path transfers data from the fast buffer to the sink
(specification, page 8, lines 25-27 and page 9, lines 1-2).
Independent claim 1 is reproduced as follows:
1. A method for controlling data transfer, the method
comprising the steps of:
(A) requesting by an application that an operating system
establish an association for purposes of data transfer between
a fast buffer and a memory object storing the data on a source
device;
(B) establishing by the operating system the association
between the fast buffer and the memory object;
(C) directing by the application that the data of the
memory object associated with the fast buffer be transferred
to a sink device via a first data path without copying any
portion of the data to main memory unless the application
attempts to access via a memory fetch/store, any portion of
the transferring data and
(D) copying the data to main memory prior to transfer to
the sink device along a second data path when the application
modifies the data of the memory object prior to step (C).
The Examiner relies on the following references:
Aichelmann et al. (Aichelmann) 4,823,259 Apr. 18, 1989
Dong et al. (Dong) 5,093,912 Mar. 3,
1992
Amini et al. (Amini) 5,381,538 Jan. 10, 1995
Appellants' admitted prior art which includes the Druschel et
al. (Druschel) article titled "Fbufs: A High-Bandwidth Cross-
Appeal No. 1999-2252
Application 08/780,790
The Brief was received February 1, 1999, and a1
Supplementary Appeal Brief was received August 13, 2001. The
Supplementary Appeal Brief will be referred to herein as the
"brief."
The Examiner's Answer was mailed March 2, 1999.2
4
Domain Transfer Facility", 14th ACM Symposium on Operating
Systems Principles, pages 189-202 (December 1993), and the
Krieger et al. (Krieger) article titled "The Alloc Stream
Facility: A Redesign of Application-Level Stream I/O,"
Computer, Vol. 27, No. 3, pages 75-82 (March 1994).
Claims 1-2, 4-7, 9-11, 13, 14 and 16 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Appellants'
admitted prior art in view of Aichelmann.
Claims 17-20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over Appellants' admitted prior art in view
of Aichelmann and Dong.
Claims 21 and 22 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over Appellants' admitted prior.
Claims 3 and 8 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over Appellants' admitted prior art in view
of Aichelmann and Amini.
Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellants and the
Examiner, reference is made to the Brief and the Examiner's1
Answer for the respective details thereof. 2
Appeal No. 1999-2252
Application 08/780,790
Brief, page 6.3
5
OPINION
A. Rejection of claims 1-2, 4-7, 9-11, 13, 14 and 16 under
35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Appellants'
admitted prior art in view of Aichelmann.
We will not sustain the rejection of Claims 1-2, 4-7, 9-
11, 13, 14 and 16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
The Examiner has failed to set forth a prima facie case.
It is the burden of the Examiner to establish why one having
ordinary skill in the art would have been led to the claimed
invention by the express teachings or suggestions found
in the prior art, or by implications contained in such
teachings or suggestions. In re Sernaker, 702 F.2d 989, 995,
217 USPQ 1, 6 (Fed. Cir. 1983).
Appellants argue that the cited references do not3
disclose, suggest, or render obvious (i) an application
directing the data in a memory object associated with a fast
buffer be transferred to a sink device without copying any
portion of the data to the main memory unless the application
Appeal No. 1999-2252
Application 08/780,790
Brief, pages 7-8.4
See Druschel, page 194, right column, section 3.2.2,5
second paragraph; page 195, left column, first full paragraph,
and section 3.2.4, third paragraph.
Brief, page 9.6
Krieger, page 80, left column, and middle column, first7
partial paragraph.
Brief, pages 9-10.8
6
attempts to access via a memory fetch/store any portion of the
transferring data, and
(ii) a first data path connecting a memory object, which is
associated with a fast buffer, to a sink device for the
purpose of data transfer.
In particular, Appellants argue that Druschel's operating4
system facility data objects are copied to, or filled in, the
fast buffers for data transfer without determining whether or5
not the data have been modified. In addition, Appellants
argue that Krieger also requires a copying to buffer, which6 7
is allocated in the main memory, be performed for data
transfer without determining whether or not the data have been
modified. In regard to Aichelmann, Appellants argue that8
the data paths disclosed by this reference are not between a
Appeal No. 1999-2252
Application 08/780,790
Answer, page 4, lines 3-4.9
Brief, pages 6-7.10
7
source device and a sink device which are input/output
devices, and that this reference does not disclose or suggest
a first data path between a memory object and a sink device.
Appellants then contrast this disclosure to their invention,
which requires a first data path linking the source device to
the sink device without going through main memory or a cache
subsystem.
In response to the Examiner's statement that "[t]hese9
rather slight system call variations would have been obvious
to one skilled in the art," Appellants argue that the cited10
references do not expressly or implicitly suggest these
aspects of their invention. In addition, Appellants argue
that the Examiner failed to present a convincing line of
reasoning as to why a combination of admitted prior art and
Aichelmann is an obvious improvement of a fast buffer to
transfer data via a first data path, without copying any
portion of the data to main memory.
Appeal No. 1999-2252
Application 08/780,790
Answer, page 3.11
Answer, page 4.12
Page 77, left column, paragraph 2; page 76, right13
column, last paragraph; page 78, right column, paragraph 2;
page 80, middle column, last paragraph.
Answer, page 4.14
8
The Examiner argues that Druschel teaches that fast11
buffers can be used to optimize the transfer of data that
originates and/or terminates at an I/O device. In addition,
the Examiner finds that in view of the read2 and write2 call12
variations "all the elements of this method claim are
satisfied
. . . and consequently satisfying such a claim would have been
obvious to one skilled in the art."
The Examiner then points to Krieger as showing the "last13
limitation" of claim 1.
The Examiner then asserts that Aichelmann teaches the14
transfer of data along a first data path and along an
alternate second data path and finds:
"It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill
in the art at the time the invention was made to
improve upon the system taught by Applicant's
admitted prior art by implementing the improvements
Appeal No. 1999-2252
Application 08/780,790
Answer, pages 10-11.15
Lines 8-12.16
Lines 8-12.17
9
detailed above because it would provide the system
taught by Applicant's admitted prior art with the
enhanced capability of a more efficient (i.e.,
faster) transfer of data . . . ."
Finally, the Examiner states "it would be obvious to a15
programmer of ordinary skill to effect a direct memory
transfer between any desired source and destination, as
opposed to performing a copy operation to an intermediate
memory, as the realized enhanced transfer efficiency is self
evident."
Turning first to Appellants' claim 1, we find that the
final subparagraph of this claim provides 16
"directing by the application that the data of the
memory object associated with the fast buffer be
transferred to a sink device via a first data path
without copying any portion of the data to main
memory unless the application attempts to access via
a memory fetch/store, any portion of the
transferring data."
Similarly, claim 6 recites 17
Appeal No. 1999-2252
Application 08/780,790
Page 194, section 3.2.2.18
Page 195, section 3.2.3.19
Page 80, left column.20
10
"a writer adapted to permit the application to direct
that the data of the memory object associated with the fast
buffer be transferred to a sink device along a first data path
without copying the data into main memory along a second data
path unless the application attempts to access via a memory
fetch/store, any portion of the transferring data."

We agree with Appellants that neither Druschel or Krieger
teach this limitation.
Druschel teaches that when a PDU arrives from the18
network "An fbuf is allocated in the kernel, filled, and then
transferred . . ." (emphasis added). In addition, Druschel
teaches "The optimization integrates buffer management and19
cross-domain data transfer facility by placing the entire
aggregate object into fbufs" (emphasis added). Druschel
therefore requires copying to fbuf for data transfer without
determining whether or not the data has been modified.
Krieger teaches that for the interface modules the I/O20
read algorithm requires "Read first calls salloc to . . .,
then copies the data from the allocated region to the user
specified buffer" (emphasis added). In addition, Krieger
Appeal No. 1999-2252
Application 08/780,790
Page 80, middle column.21
Page 77, left column; figure 1(c).22
11
teaches that the major advantage of using ASI as the21
interface is that "[d]ata is copied from the library to the
application buffer with the stream unlocked, [sic] allowing
for greater concurrency . . ." (Emphasis added). Krieger
therefore requires copying of data to the buffer.
Although Krieger states "[d]ata copying occurs only when22
the application transforms the data between the system input
and output buffers," this copying is between buffers or
allocated memory regions, and not copying of data from a
source device external to main memory, to the fast buffer in
main memory, as claimed.
In addition, the Examiner has made the following three
statements directed to the aspects of the invention found
obvious and the reasons why they were obvious. First, that
read()/write() calls which are used to transfer data between a
device and an application program resident memory location
"could be modified to take an operating system resident fast
buffer argument (representation) as opposed to an application
Appeal No. 1999-2252
Application 08/780,790
12
resident buffer argument . . . These rather slight system call
variations would have been obvious to one skilled in the art."
Answer,
page 4. Second, that
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill
in the art at the time the invention was made to
improve upon the system taught by Applicant's
admitted prior art by implementing the improvements
detailed above because it would provide the system
taught by Applicant's admitted prior art with the
enhanced capability of a more efficient (i.e.,
faster) transfer of data. Answer, pages 4-5.
Third, that " . . . it would be obvious to a programmer of
ordinary skill to effect a direct memory transfer between any
desired source and destination, as opposed to performing a
copy operation to an intermediate memory, as the realized
enhanced transfer efficiency is self evident." Answer, page
10.
The Federal Circuit states that "[t]he mere fact that the
prior art may be modified in the manner suggested by Examiner
does not make the modification obvious unless the prior art
suggested the desirability of the modification." In re
Fritch, 972 F.2d 1260, 1266 n.14, 23 USPQ2d 1780, 1783-84 n.
14 (Fed. Cir. 1992), citing In re Gordon, 733 F.2d 900, 902,
Appeal No. 1999-2252
Application 08/780,790
13
221 USPQ 1125, 1127 (Fed. Cir. 1984). However, "[o]bviousness
may not be established using hindsight or in view of the
teachings or suggestions of the invention." Para-Ordnance
Mfg. v. SGS Importers Int’l, 73 F.3d at 1087, 37 USPQ2d at
1239, citing W.L. Gore & Assocs., Inc. v. Garlock, Inc. 721
F.2d at 1553, 220 USPQ at 312-13.
We agree with Appellants that the Examiner has failed to
set forth a prima facie case. The Examiner must establish why
one having ordinary skill in the art would have been led to
the claimed invention by the express teachings or suggestions
found in the prior art, or by implications contained in such
teachings or suggestions. The references of record fail to
provide express teachings or suggestions to make the
combinations suggested by the Examiner.
Therefore, we will not sustain the rejection of Claims 1-
2, 4-7, 9-11, 13, 14 and 16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §
103 as being unpatentable over Appellants' admitted prior art
in view of Aichelmann.
Appeal No. 1999-2252
Application 08/780,790
Paper No. 15.23
Page 8.24
14
B. Rejection of claims 17-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Appellants' admitted prior art in view of
Aichelmann and Dong.
Claims 17-20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over Appellants' admitted prior art in view
of Aichelmann and Dong.
We note that although the Examiner cites the Dong
reference in the first sentence of this rejection, the
Examiner's Answer, the final rejection, and the Office action
immediately preceding the final rejection, fail to further23
mention Dong or point to any specific sections of this
reference relied upon by the Examiner for this rejection.
Our analysis of claim 17 reveals that this claim recites
at lines 5-7 substantially the same limitations of claim 1,
subparagraph (C), we analyzed above and found lacking in24
Druschel, Krieger and Aichelmann. Our analysis of Dong shows
this reference discloses the management of a buffer pool to
achieve efficient use of resources, and not the claim
Appeal No. 1999-2252
Application 08/780,790
Answer, page 6.25
Brief, page 11.26
15
limitations in lines 5-7 of claim 17. The general statements25
by the Examiner in regard to this rejection do not address
these claim limitations.
Therefore, we will not sustain the rejection of Claims
17-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over
Appellants' admitted prior art in view of Aichelmann and Dong.
C. Rejection of claims 21 and 22 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Appellants' admitted prior art.
Claims 21 and 22 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over Appellants' admitted prior.
Appellants argue that the cited references do not teach,26
suggest, or render obvious (I) a data transfer method
involving a computer system having application and operating
system instructions stored in main memory, and (ii) the data
of the memory object associated with the fast buffer being
transferred to a sink device without storing the data in the
main memory during transfer.
Appeal No. 1999-2252
Application 08/780,790
Answer, page 5.27
Pages 8 and 9.28
Answer, page 5.29
16
The Examiner asserts that "[i]t is well known that27
computer systems, such as UNIX, have application and operating
system instructions stored in main memory . . . ." In
addition the Examiner relies upon the arguments presented by
the Examiner in regard to claim 1.
As we have determined above that the "admitted prior28
art" does not disclose a data transfer from a source device to
a sink device without copying data to a main memory, finding
that both Druschel and Krieger both require copying to buffer,
we find that the admitted prior art fails to teach or suggest
the limitations recited by the last paragraph of claims 21 and
22.
Furthermore, although Appellants have not traversed the
Examiner's statement that it is well known that computer29
systems, such as UNIX, have application and operating system
instructions stored in main memory, Appellants have argued
that the prior art does not suggest or render obvious a data
Appeal No. 1999-2252
Application 08/780,790
17
transfer method involving a computer system having application
and operating system instructions stored in main memory. The
Examiner has not addressed this argument.
We therefore agree with Appellants that the Examiner has
failed to set forth a prima facie case. The Examiner must
establish why one having ordinary skill in the art would have
been led to the claimed invention by the express teachings or
suggestions found in the prior art, or by implications
contained in such teachings or suggestions. The references of
record fail to provide express teachings or suggestions to
make the combinations suggested by the Examiner.
Therefore, we will not sustain the rejection of Claims
21-22 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over
Appellants' admitted prior art.
D. Rejection of claims 3 and 8 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Appellants' admitted prior art in view of
Aichelmann and Amini.
Claims 3 and 8 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over Appellants' admitted prior art in view
of Aichelmann and Amini.
Appeal No. 1999-2252
Application 08/780,790
Brief, page 3, section III.30
Paper No. 15.31
18
Although Appellants have failed to specifically argue
these claims, Appellants include these dependent claims in30
their list of appealed claims.
We note that although the Examiner cites the Amini
reference in the first sentence of this rejection, the
Examiner's Answer, the final rejection, and the Office action
immediately preceding the final rejection, do not mention31
Amini or point to any specific section of this reference
relied upon by the Examiner for this rejection.
Claim 3 depends upon claim 1, and claim 8 depends upon
claim 6. Our analysis of Amini shows this reference
disclosing a DMA controller relevant to the additional claim
limitations presented in dependent claims 3 and 8, and not the
claim limitations we found above to be in claims 1 and 6 and
not in Druschel, Krieger and Aichelmann.
The statements by the Examiner in regard to this
rejection do not address the limitations found lacking in
claims 1 and 6. Therefore, we will not sustain the
Appeal No. 1999-2252
Application 08/780,790
19
rejection of Claims 3 and 8 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Appellants' admitted prior art in view of
Aichelmann and Amini.
We have not sustained the rejection of claims 1-11, 13-14
and 16-22 under 35 U.S.C. § 103. Accordingly, the Examiner's
decision is reversed.
REVERSED
MICHAEL R. FLEMING )
Appeal No. 1999-2252
Application 08/780,790
20
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
ANITA PELLMAN GROSS ) APPEALS
Administrative Patent Judge ) AND
) INTERFERENCES
)
)
)
JOSEPH L. DIXON )
Administrative Patent Judge )
MRF/LBG
Appeal No. 1999-2252
Application 08/780,790
21
BLAKELY, SOKOLOFF, TAYLOR & ZAFMAN
12400 WILSHIRE BOULEVARD
SEVENTH FLOOR
LOS ANGELES, CA 90025
Lesley
Appeal No. 1999-2252
Application No. 08/780,790
APJ FLEMING
APJ GROSS
APJ DIXON
DECISION: REVERSED

Prepared: July 29, 2002
Draft Final
3 MEM. CONF. Y N
OB/HD GAU 2100
PALM / ACTS 2 / BOOK
DISK (FOIA) / REPORT