Ex Parte Lee et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

May 25, 2011

10245229 (B.P.A.I. May. 25, 2011)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________________

Ex parte TERRY PING-CHUNG LEE and JAMES LAWRENCE MARSH
____________________

Appeal 2011-004687
Application 10/245,229
Technology Center 2100
____________________

Before JEAN R. HOMERE, JAY P. LUCAS and THU A. DANG,
Administrative Patent Judges.

DANG, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

I. STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a final rejection of
claims 1-9, 13-21, 24-30, 38-41, 43-51, and 53-55. We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).

Appeal 2011-004687
Application 10/245,229

2
A. INVENTION
According to Appellants, the invention relates to the field of
electronic devices and, specifically, to methods and systems for allocating
memory resources of Peripheral Component Interconnect (PCI) devices
(Spec. 1, ¶ [0001]).

B. ILLUSTRATIVE CLAIM
Claim 1 is exemplary and is reproduced below:
1. A method of allocating memory in a memory unit
to Peripheral Component Interconnect (PCI) cards and bridges,
said method comprising:

creating a data structure containing a list of all available
memory segments; and

assigning a bias to each available memory segment, said
bias indicating how to allocate that available memory segment
in response to a resource request, said bias comprising an
indication of where within a new entry to be made in the
memory unit a corresponding available memory segment
should be used.

C. REJECTIONS
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Falkenburg US 6,311,242 B1 Oct. 30, 2001
Hoffer US 5,625,819 Apr. 29, 1997
Peterman US 5,623,654 Apr. 22, 1997

Appeal 2011-004687
Application 10/245,229

3
Claims 1-9, 13-21, 24-30, 38-41, 43-51, and 53-55 stand rejected
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over the teachings of Falkenburg in view of Hoffer
and Peterman.
We affirm.

II. ISSUE
The pivotal issue before us is whether Appellants have shown that the
Examiner erred in finding that the combination of Falkenburg, Hoffer, and
Peterman discloses a “bias comprising an indication of where within a new
entry to be made in the memory unit a corresponding available memory
segment should be used” (Claim 1).

III. FINDINGS OF FACT
The following Findings of Fact (FF) are shown by a preponderance of
the evidence.
Falkenburg
1. Falkenburg discloses selecting an identified (Peripheral Component
Interconnect) PCI (col. 10, l. 67 to col. 11, l. 1; Fig. 5) and allocating
memory space for the selected PCI (col. 11, ll. 2-3; Fig. 5).
Hoffer
2. Hoffer discloses allocating and freeing blocks of memory as requested
by the user (col. 8, ll. 11-12), wherein a list of all blocks of memory
that are not in use is kept in a free list (col. 8, ll. 12-14); and when a
Appeal 2011-004687
Application 10/245,229

4
user requests memory, the free list is searched for either a memory
block that is the exact same size or for the largest memory block that
can be divided into the exact size requested (col. 8, ll. 21-31).
3. Current Working Pointer 203 points to a block of memory that is
being allocated or freed (col. 10, ll. 27-39; Fig. 2), wherein entries in
allocated memory block header 300 describe attributes about the
block, the owner and a pointer to the next allocated block, if any (col.
10, ll. 62-65).
Peterman
4. Peterman discloses a memory manager that determines an entry in a
table; accesses a free list through the entry in the table, the free list
being associated with all of the free blocks being of the free block
size; and requests one of the free blocks of the free block size for
application to use in the memory system (Abstract).
5. A free table includes 1024 entries beginning with entry 0 and ending
with entry 1023, wherein entry N250 is a pointer to free blocks in the
free list 252 (col. 4, ll. 20-36; Fig. 6).

V. ANALYSIS
Independent Claims 1 and 50
As for claim 1, Appellants admit that “Peterman teaches a free
memory table having a pointer (256) . . . . This pointer merely indicates a
specific position in memory indicating a point within ‘a circular chain of
free block’” (App. Br. 12). However, Appellants argue that “[t]he pointer
Appeal 2011-004687
Application 10/245,229

5
(256) taught by Peterman has no function for dictating where, within a new
entry to be made in the memory unit, a particular available memory segment
should be used, i.e., bias” since the pointer “does not indicate whether any
given available memory segment should be the beginning, end or anywhere
with the data to be written to memory” (App. Br. 12-13).
The Examiner finds that Peterman discloses a memory manager which
“comprises logic that comprises a pointer such as 256 that operates as a
starter pointer within the free memory space that would allocate memory to
applied application” wherein “the pointer is applied in the free memory and
indicates the bias on how the free memory will be used” (Ans. 14).
According to the Examiner, “[s]ince prior art teaches the breadth of the
claimed limitation, the appellant’s argument is not considered persuasive”
(id.).
Appellants’ argument that “[t]he pointer (256) taught by Peterman has
no function for dictating where, within a new entry to be made in the
memory unit, a particular available memory segment should be used, i.e.,
bias” since the pointer “does not indicate whether any given available
memory segment should be the beginning, end or anywhere within the data
to be written to memory” (App. Br. 12-13) is not commensurate in scope
with the language of claim 1. Such a concept of “bias” from Appellants’
Specification or such “beginning, end” within the data cannot be read into
the claim where the claim does not recite such limitation.
Appeal 2011-004687
Application 10/245,229

6
We begin our analysis by giving claim 1 its broadest reasonable
interpretation consistent with the Specification. See In re Bigio, 381 F.3d
1320, 1324 (Fed. Cir. 2004). However, our analysis will not read limitations
into the claim from the Specification. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181,
1184 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Claim 1 simply does not place any limitation on what the “bias”
feature is to be, to represent, or to mean, other than that the bias indicates
how to allocate available memory segments and comprises an indication
where within a new entry a corresponding available memory segment should
be used. Thus, we broadly but reasonably construe the term “bias” as any
element that indicates where within a new entry a corresponding memory
segment should be used, as specifically defined in the claim.
Hoffer discloses allocating and freeing blocks of memory as requested
by a user, wherein pointers are used to point to a block of memory that is
being allocated or freed and to point to a block of memory that will be split
memory (FF 2-3). We find claim 1’s “assigning a bias to each available
memory segment” to read on Hoffer’s use of pointers and memory block
header with each available memory segment to indicate how to allocate the
segments. Thus, we find the combined teaching of Falkenburg and Hoffer
would at the least strongly suggest “assigning a bias to each available
memory segment, said bias indicating how to allocate that available memory
segment in response to a resource request” (Claim 1).
Appeal 2011-004687
Application 10/245,229

7
Furthermore, Peterman discloses determining an entry in a table;
accessing a free list through the entry in the table, the free list being
associated with all of the free blocks being of the free block size; and
requesting free blocks associated with the free list for application to use in
the memory system (FF 4). In Peterman, the table includes a plurality of
entries including a beginning entry 0 and an ending entry 1023, and an entry
N250 is used as a pointer to the free list (FF 5). We find claim 1’s “bias” to
read on Peterman’s pointer at entry N250 pointing to the corresponding free
blocks in free list 252, wherein the pointer indicates where within a new
entry in the table a corresponding free block associated with the free list
should be used. Such entry could be a beginning entry 0 or an ending entry
1023. In view of our claim interpretation above, we find Peterman to at the
least suggest a “bias comprising an indication of where within a new entry to
be made in the memory unit a corresponding available memory segment
should be used” as required by claim 1.
Thus, we find no error in the Examiner’s finding that the combined
teachings of Hoffer, Falkenburg and Peterman would have suggested a
memory manager which “comprises logic that comprises a pointer such as
256 that operates as a starter pointer within the free memory space that
would allocate memory to applied application” wherein “the pointer is
applied in the free memory and indicates the bias on how the free memory
will be used” (Ans. 14).
Appeal 2011-004687
Application 10/245,229

8
As for claim 50, Appellants repeat the arguments with respect to claim
1. Since we find no error with respect to the Examiner’s rejection of claim
1, claim 50 falls with claim 1.
Independent Claim 38
As to claim 38, Appellants repeat the argument that “Peterman, like
the other cited prior art references, never teaches or suggests the claimed
concept of ‘bias’” and contend that the Examiner “fails to indicate how or
where the cited prior art teaches the three different types of bias expressly
defined in claim 38” (App, Br. 15). However, as discussed above, we
broadly but reasonably construe the term “bias” consistent with the
Specification and find no error in the Examiner’s finding that the claimed
“bias” reads on the prior art pointer. As Peterman discloses that such pointer
can indicate a beginning entry, an ending entry or an entry in between (FF
5), we find Appellants’ argument that there is no suggestion of three
different types of bias in the prior art to be without merit.
Independent Claim 15
As for claim 15, Appellants also argue that “the combination of
Falkenburg, Hoffer and Peterman fails to teach or suggest the steps of the
claimed method, including ‘creating a data structure containing a list of all
available memory segments within said memory,’ and ‘prioritizing resource
requests from the PCI cards and bridges for use of said memory’” (App. Br.
17). However, Falkenburg discloses selecting an identified PCI and
allocating memory for the selected PCI (FF 1). We find that an artisan
Appeal 2011-004687
Application 10/245,229

9
would have understood that selection of the order of PCI requests to process
is a prioritization of the requests. Thus, we find that Falkenburg’s selection
of which PCI request to allocate resource among the plurality of PCIs to be
or at the least suggests “prioritizing resource requests from the PCI cards
and bridges” (Claim 15). KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S. Ct. 1727,
1734 (2007).
Dependent Claims 2-9, 13, 14, 16-21, 24-30, 39-41, 43-49, 51, and
53-55
As to dependent claim 8, the Examiner repeats the argument that “the
combination of cited prior art fails to teach or suggest any prioritizing of
resource requests” (App, Br. 19). However, as discussed above with respect
to claim 15, we find Falkenburg to disclose selecting an identified PCI and
allocating memory for the selected PCI (FF 1), wherein an artisan would
have understood that selection of the order of PCI requests to process is a
prioritization of the requests. Accordingly, claim 8 also falls.
As to dependent claims 9 and 18, the Examiner repeats the argument
that a pointer “does not equate to the claimed bias which, instead, dictates
the position of a memory segment within a future memory allocation made
in response to an incoming request” and that “there is nothing in the cited
portions of Hoffer about the three different types of bias” (App, Br. 20).
However, as discussed above with respect to claim 38, we find , we broadly
but reasonably construe the term “bias” consistent with the Specification and
find no error in the Examiner’s finding that the claimed “bias” reads on the
Appeal 2011-004687
Application 10/245,229

10
prior art pointer. As Peterman discloses that such pointer can indicate a
beginning entry, an ending entry or an entry in between (FF 5), we find
Appellants’ argument that there is no suggestion of three different types of
bias in the prior art to be without merit. Accordingly, claims 9 and 18 also
fall.
As for dependent claims 14, 20 and 21, Appellants merely repeat the
claim language and make a statement that the Examiner fails to show where
such limitation appears in the prior art (App. Br. 21-22). However, a
statement which merely points out what a claim recites will not be
considered an argument for separate patentability of the claim. See 37
C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(vii). Moreover, mere statements that are unsupported by
factual evidence are entitled to little probative value. In re Geisler, 116 F.3d
1465, 1470 (Fed. Cir. 1997); see also In re De Blauwe, 736 F.2d 699, 705
(Fed. Cir. 1984); and Ex parte Belinne, No. 2009-004693, slip op. at 7-8
(BPAI Aug. 10, 2009) (informative), available at
http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/dcom/bpai/its/fd09004693.pdf. The
Examiner finds the prior art to disclose or at the least suggest the claimed
limitations (Ans. 6, 7, and 22-23). We find no error in such finding by the
Examiner.
Appellants do not provide separate arguments for dependent claims 2-
7, 13, 16, 17, 19, 24-30, 39-41, 43-49, 51, and 53-55. Accordingly, claims
2-7, 13, 16, 17, 19, 24-30, 39-41, 43-49, 51, and 53-55 also fall.

Appeal 2011-004687
Application 10/245,229

11
CONCLUSION AND DECISION
Appellants have not shown that the Examiner erred in concluding that
claims 1-9, 13-21, 24-30, 38-41, 43-51, and 53-55 are unpatentable under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) over the teachings of Falkenburg, Hoffer and Peterman.
Accordingly, we affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-9, 13-21, 24-
30, 38-41, 43-51, and 53-55 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a).

AFFIRMED

peb