Ex Parte Liu et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

May 24, 2012

10920915 (B.P.A.I. May. 24, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte LISA LIU and ROBERT JOHNSON

Appeal 2010-001479
Application 10/920,915
Technology Center 3900
____________

Before JOSEPH L. DIXON, LANCE LEONARD BARRY, and
JAMES R. HUGHES, Administrative Patent Judges.

HUGHES, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s final
rejection of claims 1-19. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.

Appeal 2010-001479
Application 10/920,915

2
Invention
Appellants’ invention is directed to managing a data structure for
multi-processor access. More particularly, Appellants’ invention is directed
to providing exclusive access to a data structure in a multi-processor
environment. (See Spec. ¶ [0005].)1

Representative Claim
Independent claim 1, reproduced below with the key disputed
limitations emphasized, further illustrates the invention:

1. A method for managing a data structure for multi-processor
access comprising:

receiving a request for a data structure;

fetching in response to a request the requested data structure
and a corresponding spin-lock from a computer readable medium;

storing the data structure and the corresponding spin-lock in a
single cache line; and

providing exclusive access to the data structure.

Rejection on Appeal
The Examiner rejects claims 1-19 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being
anticipated by Sutanto (US Patent No. 6,986,010 B2, January 10, 2006, filed
Dec. 13, 2002).

1 We refer to Appellants’ Specification (“Spec.”); Reply Brief (“Reply Br.”)
filed October 19, 2009, and Appeal Brief (“App. Br.”) filed May 19, 2009.
We also refer to the Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.”) mailed August 17, 2009.
Appeal 2010-001479
Application 10/920,915

3

ISSUE
Based upon our review of the administrative record, Appellants’
contentions, and the Examiner’s findings and conclusions, we have
determined that the following issue is dispositive in this appeal:
Under §102, did the Examiner err in determining that Sutanto
discloses “storing the data structure and the corresponding spin-lock in a
single cache line” within the meaning of independent claim 1 and
commensurate limitations of independent claims 6, 11, and 15?

ANALYSIS
Based upon our review of the record, we find the preponderance of
the evidence supports the Appellants’ position that the Examiner erred in
determining that Sutanto anticipates the disputed subject matter of
representative claim 1. (See Reply Br. 1-2; App. Br. 5-6.) More
particularly, it is our view that Sutanto does not expressly or inherently
disclose or describe “storing the data structure and the corresponding spin-
lock in a single cache line.” (Claim 1.)
We agree with Examiner that the cited portions of Sutanto disclose
setting a “lock bit” in the STRB (store request buffer). (Ans. 3, 6-7; Sutanto,
col. 5, ll. 13-20.) According to Sutanto, the “lock-bit” indicates that an
atomic read-modify-write operation is in process to the cache line indicated
by the STRB address. (Sutanto, col. 5, ll. 1-7.) We also find, however, that
the “load-lock” described by Sutanto is not analogous to the claimed “spin-
lock” for the same reasons argued by Appellants. (Reply Br. 2.) Nowhere
does Sutanto describe storing fetched data together with the “load-lock.”
Appeal 2010-001479
Application 10/920,915

4
Rather, the cited portions of Sutanto describe storing a load-lock (lock-bit)
together with a cache address in the STRB. (Sutanto, col. 5, ll. 12-20.)
Consequently, we are constrained by the record before us to conclude that
the Examiner has not established that Sutanto discloses storing both a
fetched requested data structure and a spin-lock on a single cache line.
Accordingly, we reverse the Examiner’s anticipation rejection of claims 1-
19 for the reasons set forth above and in Appellants’ Briefs.

CONCLUSION OF LAW
Appellants have shown the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1-19
under 35 U.S.C. §102(e).

DECISION
We reverse the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-19 under 35 U.S.C.
§102(e).

ORDER
REVERSED

peb