Ex parte Liebl et al.

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

May 22, 2000

08272590 (B.P.A.I. May. 22, 2000)

An amendment after the final rejection was filed [paper1
no. 7] and was approved for entry by the Examiner [paper no.
8].
1
THIS OPINION WAS NOT WRITTEN FOR PUBLICATION
The opinion in support of the decision being entered today (1)
was not written for publication in a law journal and (2) is
not binding precedent of the Board.
Paper No. 17
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_____________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
_____________
Ex parte ROBERT LIEBL, and
WOLFGANG PFAEHLER
_____________
Appeal No. 1997-1207
Application 08/272,590
______________
ON BRIEF
_______________
Before HAIRSTON, KRASS and LALL, Administrative Patent Judges.
LALL, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is an appeal from the final rejection of all the1
pending claims, 1, 2, 4, 6, 8 and 9.
The disclosed invention pertains to a method of
Appeal No. 1997-1207
Application 08/272,590
2
coordinating parallel accesses of a plurality of processors to
resource configurations. Each resource is secured by a
security number, whereby resources that belong to a common
resource configuration all receive the same security number.
All security numbers are conferred via a central security
table. The access control is conferred on demand to a
processor over an entire resource configuration when the
security number belonging to this resource configuration has
not been seized at this point in time by a different
processor. Thus, access to an entire resource configuration
comprising many individual resources is granted rather than to
the individual resources. The invention is further
illustrated by the following claim.
1. A method for coordination of parallel accesses of a
plurality of processors to resource configurations that have
resources, comprising the steps of:
securing each resource by a security number from the
plurality of security numbers, resources that belong to a
common resource configuration having a common security number,
security numbers of the plurality of security numbers being
forwarded to the resources via a central security table; and
assigning access control over an entire respective
resource configuration on demand to a requesting processor,
when a respective security number belonging to the respective
resource configuration has not been seized at this point in
time by a different processor.
Appeal No. 1997-1207
Application 08/272,590
3
The references relied on by the Examiner are:
East et al. (East) 5,321,841 Jun. 14, 1994
(Effectively filed, Jun. 29, 1989)
Lockwood 5,339,443 Aug. 16,
1994
(Effectively filed, Nov. 19, 1991)
Claims 1, 2, 4, 6, 8 and 9 stand rejected under 35
U.S.C.
§ 103 over Lockwood and East.

Reference is made to Appellants’ brief and the Examiner's
answer for their respective positions.
OPINION
We have considered the record before us, and we will
reverse the rejection of claims 1, 2, 4, 6, 8 and 9.
In rejecting claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103, it is
incumbent upon the Examiner to establish a factual basis to
support the legal conclusion of obviousness. See In re Fine,
837 F.2d 1071, 1073, 5 USPQ2d 1596, 1598 (Fed. Cir. 1988). In
so doing, the Examiner is expected to make the factual
determinations set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S.
1, 17, 148 USPQ 459, 467
Appeal No. 1997-1207
Application 08/272,590
4
(CCPA 1966), and to provide a reason why one having ordinary
skill in the pertinent art would have been led to modify the
prior art or to combine prior art references to arrive at the
claimed invention. Such reason must stem from some teaching,
suggestion or implication in the prior art as a whole or
knowledge generally available to one having ordinary skill in
the art. Uniroyal, Inc. v. Rudkin-Wiley Corp., 837 F.2d 1044,
1051, 5 USPQ2d 1434, 1438 (Fed. Cir.), cert. denied, 488 U.S.
825 (1988); Ashland Oil, Inc. v. Delta Resins & Refractories,
Inc., 776 F.2d 281, 293, 227 USPQ 657, 664 (Fed. Cir. 1985),
cert. denied, 475 U.S. 1017 (1986); ACS Hospital System, Inc.
v. Montefiore Hospital, 732 F.2d 1572, 1577, 221 USPQ 929, 933
(Fed. Cir. 1984). These showings by the Examiner are an
essential part of complying with the burden of presenting a
prima facie case of obviousness. Note In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d
1443, 1445, 24 USPQ2d 1443, 1444 (Fed. Cir. 1992).
Furthermore, the Federal Circuit states that “[the] mere
fact that the prior art may be modified in the manner
suggested by the Examiner does not make the modification
obvious unless the prior art suggested the desirability of the
modification.” In re Fitch, 972 F.2d 1260, 1266 n.14, 23
Appeal No. 1997-1207
Application 08/272,590
5
USPQ2d 1780, 1783-84 n.14 (Fed. Cir. 1992), citing In re
Gordon, 773 F.2d 900, 902, 221 USPQ 1125, 1127 (Fed. Cir.
1984). “Obviousness may not be established using hindsight or
in view of the teachings or suggestions of the inventor.”
Para-Ordnance Mfg. v. SGS Importers Int’l, 73 F.3d 1085, 1087,
37 USPQ2d 1237, 1239 (Fed. Cir. 1995), citing W. L. Gore &
Assocs., v. Garlock, Inc., 721 F.2d 1540, 1551, 1553, 220 USPQ
303, 311, 312-13 (Fed. Cir. 1983), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 851
(1984).
Claims 1, 2, 4, 6, 8 and 9
At the outset, we note that Appellants have elected to
have all the claims to stand or fall together [brief, page 7].
The Examiner too has not discussed any claims individually
[final
Appeal No. 1997-1207
Application 08/272,590
6
rejection, pages 2 to 3]. We consider claim 1 as
representative of the group.
Appellants argue [brief, pages 9 and 10] that “teachings
of Lockwood and East et al would not result in the steps of
protecting each resource by a security number, where resources
that belong to a common resource configuration receive the
same
security number; and upon demand of a respective resource by a
respective processor, the security number of the respective
recourse [sic] seize for the respective processor, the result
thereof being that the entire resource configuration to which
the respective resource belongs is protected against parallel
accesses by other processors.” The Examiner responds [answer,
pages 3 to 8] that Lockwood, col. 4, line 65 to col. 5, line
5, shows a resource 16 (Lockwood’s fig. 1) which is not a
single entity as argued by Appellants, but could have more
than one “elements” in it and together they have the same
security number as being a part of resource 16. The Examiner
also presents [id. at 5] a claim analysis of claim 1 and
compares it with the East reference. Here, the Examiner
asserts that common resource configuration having a common
Appeal No. 1997-1207
Application 08/272,590
7
security number is shown by East at col. 2, lines 6 to 14 and
lines 22 to 24. Thus, the Examiner has referred above both to
Lockwood and East for the concept of “a common resource
configuration having a common security number.” However, we
find that Lockwood and East, either singly or together, do not
meet the claimed limitations of “resources that belong to a
common resource configuration having a common security number”
and “assigning access control over an entire respective
resource configuration.” [One such example of a common
resource configuration having the same security number is,
incidently, shown by fig. 2 of Appellants’ specification.]
Therefore, we do not sustain the obviousness rejection of
claim 1 over Lockwood and East.
As other independent claims, 4 and 6, each have
limitations which correspond to the limitations discussed
above, they are not obvious over Lockwood and East for the
same rationale as claim 1 above. Therefore, we do not sustain
the rejection of claims 4 and 6 over Lockwood and East.
With respect to all the dependent claims, 2, 8 and 9,
they at least contain the limitations of their respective
independent claims and, consequently, distinguish over
Appeal No. 1997-1207
Application 08/272,590
8
Lockwood and East for the same reasoning as for the
independent claims discussed above.
Appeal No. 1997-1207
Application 08/272,590
9
In conclusion, we reverse the obviousness rejection of
claims 1, 2, 4, 6, 8 and 9 over Lockwood and East.
REVERSED
KENNETH W. HAIRSTON )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
ERROL A. KRASS ) APPEALS AND
Administrative Patent Judge ) INTERFERENCES
)
)
)
PARSHOTAM S. LALL )
Administrative Patent Judge )
Appeal No. 1997-1207
Application 08/272,590
10
Hill, Steadman & Simpson
85th Floor Sears Tower
Chicago, IL 60606