Ex Parte Laudon

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Sep 12, 2011

11477733 (B.P.A.I. Sep. 12, 2011)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________________

Ex parte JAMES P. LAUDON
____________________

Appeal 2009-014880
Application 11/477,733
Technology Center 2100
____________________

Before, MAHSHID D. SAADAT, ROBERT E. NAPPI, and
JONI Y. CHANG, Administrative Patent Judges.

CHANG, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2009-014880
Application 11/477,733

2
STATEMENT OF CASE
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a final rejection of
claims 1-2, 5-12, 15, and 18-20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b). We affirm.
Exemplary Claim
Appellant’s claimed invention is related to a memory controller for
limiting the number of memory requests. Claim 11 is representative of the
subject matter on appeal:
1. A memory controller comprising:
a memory interface configured to couple to a memory; and
a control unit coupled to the memory interface, wherein the
control unit is configured to store [1] a first parameter indicating a
maximum number of carry-over memory requests that are allowed to
be executed during a predetermined time period, and [2] a second
parameter indicating a maximum number of new memory requests
that are allowed to be executed during the predetermined time period;
wherein the control unit is further configured to determine a
memory request limit indicating [3] a maximum number of memory
requests that are allowed to be executed during the predetermined
time period based on at least the first parameter and the second
parameter.
(App. Br. 13)2

Rejection on Appeal3
Claims 1-2, 5-12, 15, and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
being anticipated by Clark4. (Ans. 2).5

1 The claim is reproduced with the numbering in brackets and emphases
added to highlight the disputed limitations.
2 All references to Appeal Brief are to the Brief filed December 30, 2008.
3 The Examiner’s Answer indicates that the rejection of claims 3-4, 13-14,
and 16-17 has been withdrawn. (Ans. 3).
Appeal 2009-014880
Application 11/477,733

3
Appellant’s Contentions
Appellant argues that Clark fails to teach all of the elements of
claim 1. In particular, Appellant contends that Clark does not expressly or
inherently describe the following limitations:
[1] “a first parameter indicating a maximum number of carry-over
memory requests that are allowed to be executed during a predetermined
time period” (hereafter “the first parameter”);
[2] “a second parameter indicating a maximum number of new
memory requests that are allowed to be executed during the predetermined
time period” (hereafter “the second parameter”); and
[3] “a maximum number of memory requests that are allowed to be
executed during the predetermined time period based on at least the first
parameter and the second parameter” (hereafter “maximum number of
memory requests”). (App. Br. 5 and Reply Br. 3)6.
Appellant further argues that Clark does not describe a maximum
number of memory requests based on two thresholds: (1) the maximum
number of carry-over memory requests that are allowed to be executed
during a predetermined time period; and (2) the maximum number of new
memory requests that are allowed to be executed during the predetermined
time period. (App. Br. 7). Appellant also asserts that there is no showing
that Clark’s counters are associated with a “predetermined time period.”
(Reply Br. 5).

4 Clark et al., US 6,487,645, Nov. 26, 2002.
5 All references to Answer are to the Answer dated April 16, 2009.
6 All references to Reply Brief are to the Reply Brief filed June 16, 2009.
Appeal 2009-014880
Application 11/477,733

4
Appellant argues claims 1-2 and 5-11 as a group. (App. Br. 5).
Accordingly, we select claim 1 as the representative claim. 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(1)(vii). Appellant provides separate headings for: (1) claims 12-
14, and (2) claims 15 and 17-20. However, Appellant merely states that the
rejection of claims 12 and 15 is improper for the same reasons provided for
claim 1, because the claims recite similar disputed limitations. (App. Br.
10). Claims 1, 12, and 15 are independent claims.
Issue on Appeal
The issue is whether the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1 under
35 U.S.C. § 102(b) because Clark fails to describe the disputed claim
limitations.
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejection in light of Appellant’s
arguments. We concur with the Examiner’s conclusions set forth in the
Answer. The Examiner explains the following in the rejection of claim 1:
Clark teaches a memory controller comprising: a memory
interface configured to couple to a memory (Col 2, Lines 43-48); and
a control unit coupled to the memory interface (Col 2, Lines 43-48),
wherein the control unit is configured to store a first parameter
indicating a maximum number of carry-over memory requests that are
allowed to be executed during a predetermined time period (Col 9,
Lines 7-12), and a second parameter indicating a maximum number of
new memory requests that are allowed to be executed during the
predetermined time period (Col 8, Lines 60-67; Col 9, Lines 1-6);
wherein the control unit is further configured to determine a memory
request limit indicating, a maximum number of memory requests that
are allowed to be executed during the predetermined time period
based on at least the first parameter and the second parameter (Col 9,
Lines 14-29).
Appeal 2009-014880
Application 11/477,733

5
(Final Action 2-3) 7.
While Clark uses different terminologies than those used in
Appellant’s claim limitations, Clark nonetheless anticipates the claim if it
describes every limitation in the claim. In re Bond, 910 F.2d 831, 832-33
(Fed. Cir. 1990) (anticipation “is not an ‘ipsissimis verbis’ test.”); see also
Standard Havens Prods. v. Gencor Indus., 953 F.2d 1360, 1369 (Fed. Cir.
1991) (“An anticipatory reference . . . need not duplicate word for word
what is in the claims.”). Therefore, we analyze the functionalities of Clark’s
relevant elements (e.g., updates, buffered updates, update counter 116, and
update threshold setting 119) 8, and equate them to Appellant’s argued
limitations in the discussion below.
With respect to Appellant’s claim limitation [2], Clark teaches that the
memory controller determines whether to accept a new update request
(“a new memory request”) by determining whether the update activity
counter 116 has exceeded the threshold 119. (Figures 1 and 3, col. 7, lines
24-28). Clark describes that if the update counter 116 has not exceeded the
threshold 119, the controller accepts the update (“the new memory request”)
and stores the update in the buffer. (Figures 1 and 3, col. 7, lines 37-39).
Clark further teaches that if the update counter 116 has exceeded the
threshold 119, then the controller rejects the new update request (“the new
memory request”). (Figures 1 and 3, col. 7, lines 50-56). In addition, Clark
teaches that the update counter 116 is incremented when an update is
accepted by the controller (Figures 1 and 3, col. 5, lines 1-9), and the

7 All references to Final Action are to the Final Office Action dated
October 8, 2008, the action from which this appeal is taken.
8 The reference numbers used in this opinion are same as those reference
numbers used in Clark’s written description and drawings.
Appeal 2009-014880
Application 11/477,733

6
controller sets a new threshold 119 periodically (e.g., once every minute)
(see Figures 1 and 5, col. 8, lines 60-67, and col. 9, lines 1-6). Therefore, if
the threshold 119 is being adjusted once every minute, “the predetermined
time period” would be one minute.
Accordingly, the difference between the threshold 119 and the counter
116 has the same function as Appellant’s “the second parameter” because
the difference between the threshold 119 and the counter 116 in Clark’s
storage management system is the maximum number of new updates (the
threshold for “new memory requests”) that the controller allows to execute
during the one-minute time period (“the predetermined time period”). Clark
maintains and utilizes this threshold for new update requests by setting the
threshold 119 and using the update counter 116. Contrary to Appellant’s
contention that Clark fails to teach “the second parameter” as recited in
claim limitation [2], one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the
invention would recognize that Clark’s controller maintains and utilizes such
threshold for new update requests. As such, Appellant’s claim limitation [2]
is taught by Clark.
With respect to Appellant’s claim limitation [1], Clark teaches that in
response to a data transfer command, the controller transmits some or all of
the buffered updates (“carry-over memory requests”) to the data mover 108
for storage. (Figures 1 and 4, col. 8, lines 34-41). Clark further describes
that the update counter 116 represents the number of buffered updates
(“carry-over memory requests”) because the update counter 116 is
incremented when an update is buffered and decremented when an update is
transferred. (Figures 1 and 4, col. 8, lines 52-57). As such, Clark’s update
counter 116 also performs the same function as Appellant’s “the first
Appeal 2009-014880
Application 11/477,733

7
parameter” because the update counter 116 is the maximum number of
buffered updates (the threshold for “carry-over memory requests”) that can
be transferred or executed during the one-minute time period (“the
predetermined time period”). Contrary to Appellant’s contention that Clark
fails to teach “the first parameter” as recited in claim limitation [1], one of
ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would recognize that
Clark’s controller maintains and utilizes a threshold for buffered updates.
Accordingly, Appellant’s claim limitation [1] is taught by Clark.
As to Appellant’s claim limitation [3], Clark teaches that the memory
controller periodically adjusts the threshold 119 based on: the update
counter 116 (“the first parameter”), the rejection history 118, the amount of
update data stored in the buffer 114, the threshold setting 119, the number of
allowed updates (“the second parameter”), the buffer size, and the rate of
off-load updates. (Figure 5, col. 8, lines 65-67, col. 9, lines 1-29). Similar to
Appellant’s “maximum number of memory requests” recited in claim
limitation [3], Clark’s newly adjusted threshold 119 is set based on two
thresholds: (1) the maximum number of new updates that the controller
allows to execute during the one-minute time period (“the first parameter”);
and (2) the maximum number of buffered updates that can be transferred or
executed during the one-minute time period (“the second parameter”).
Moreover, Clark’s threshold 119 is the maximum number of updates that the
controller allows to execute during the one-minute time period (“maximum
number of memory requests”). Therefore, Appellant’s claim limitation [3] is
taught by Clark.
Appeal 2009-014880
Application 11/477,733

8
Based on the evidence before us and for the foregoing reasons, we
find no error in the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1. Appellant did not
submit separate arguments for other claims.

CONCLUSION
The Examiner has not erred in rejecting claims 1-2, 5-12, 15, and 18-
20 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Clark.

DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-2, 5-12, 15, and
18-20.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED

msc