Ex Parte McBride et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Dec 22, 2010

11344900 (B.P.A.I. Dec. 22, 2010)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
United States Patent and Trademark Office
Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
P.O. Box 1450
Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
www.uspto.gov
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
11/344,900 02/01/2006 Chad B. McBride ROC920050425US1 6932
46797 7590 12/22/2010
IBM CORPORATION, INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW
DEPT 917, BLDG. 006-1
3605 HIGHWAY 52 NORTH
ROCHESTER, MN 55901-7829
EXAMINER
FAAL, BABOUCARR
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2189
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/22/2010 PAPER
Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.
The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte CHAD B. MCBRIDE,
ANDREW H. WOTTRENG,
and JOHN D. IRISH
____________

Appeal 2009-009232
Application 11/344,900
Technology Center 2100
____________

Before JOSEPH L. DIXON, LANCE LEONARD BARRY, and
HOWARD B. BLANKENSHIP, Administrative Patent Judges.

BLANKENSHIP, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL1

1 The two-month time period for filing an appeal or commencing a civil
action, as recited in 37 C.F.R. § 1.304, or for filing a request for rehearing,
as recited in 37 C.F.R. § 41.52, begins to run from the “MAIL DATE”
(paper delivery mode) or the “NOTIFICATION DATE” (electronic delivery
mode) shown on the PTOL-90A cover letter attached to this decision.
Appeal 2009-009232
Application 11/344,900

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s final
rejection of claims 1-24, which are all the claims in the application. We
have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.

Invention
Appellants’ invention relates to interleaving commands requiring
address translation with maintenance operations that are applied to an
address translation cache. See Abstract.

Representative Claim
1. A method for allowing access to an address
translation pipeline, comprising:

interleaving, within clock cycles of the address
translation pipeline, maintenance cycles with functional cycles;

allowing functional commands, corresponding to
requests for address translation, to access the address translation
pipeline during a functional cycle; and

allowing maintenance commands, corresponding to
requests to read or modify at least one of an address translation
cache or a translation look-aside buffer, to access the address
translation pipeline during a maintenance cycle.

Examiner’s Rejections
Claims 1-4, 6, 7, 9-12, 14, 15, 17-20, 22, and 23 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Riedlinger (US 2002/0169929
A1) and May (EP 0 689 130 A1).
Appeal 2009-009232
Application 11/344,900

3
Claims 5, 13, and 21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Riedlinger, May, and Masri (US 6,625,694 B2).
Claims 8, 16, and 24 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Riedlinger, May, and Tanabe (US 2006/0236001 A1).

FINDINGS OF FACT
We rely on the Examiner’s findings set forth in the Final Rejection
and the Answer.

PRINCIPLES OF LAW
“[W]hen a patent ‘simply arranges old elements with each performing
the same function it had been known to perform’ and yields no more than
one would expect from such an arrangement, the combination is obvious.”
KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 417 (2007) (quoting Sakraida
v. Ag Pro, Inc., 425 U.S. 273, 282 (1976)). The operative question is
“whether the improvement is more than the predictable use of prior art
elements according to their established functions.” Id.

ANALYSIS
The Examiner rejects representative claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
over the combination of Riedlinger and May. The Examiner refers to
Riedlinger as teaching an address translation pipeline and “functional” and
“maintenance” commands consistent with the claim. The Examiner refers to
May as teaching the interleaving of instructions within clock cycles of a
pipelined operation.
Appeal 2009-009232
Application 11/344,900

4
Appellants do not appear to contest the above-noted findings with
respect to the teachings of the references. Further, Appellants do not appear
to address the Examiner’s finding that, in view of the combined teachings,
the ordinary artisan would have appreciated that interleaving commands in a
translation pipeline would allow for better system throughput and enable
high-speed pipeline operations. Appellants argue, however, that the
“commands” as recited in claim 1 and taught by Riedlinger are different
from the “instructions” that are interleaved in May.
Appellants’ assertion that the commands and instructions are
“different,” without more, might demonstrate error in a rejection for
anticipation but fails to show error in the instant rejection for obviousness.
We can thus agree with Appellants to the extent that “neither Riedlinger nor
May” (App. Br. 12) disclose the entire subject matter of claim 1. However,
“[n]onobviousness cannot be established by attacking references
individually where the rejection is based upon the teachings of a
combination of references.” In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed.
Cir. 1986) (citing In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981)).
Appellants have not provided evidence or persuasive argument to
show that one of ordinary skill in the art would fail to recognize that the
interleaving of instructions as taught by May would be applicable to the
address translation pipelining described by Riedlinger. On this record, the
invention of claim 1 thus appears to represent no more than the predictable
use of prior art elements according to their established functions, and thus
obvious to the ordinary skilled artisan at the time of invention.
Appellants have argued claim 1 as representative of all the claims and
have thus elected for all claims to stand or fall with claim 1. See 37 C.F.R.
Appeal 2009-009232
Application 11/344,900

5
§ 41.37(c)(1)(vii). We sustain the rejection of claim 1. Claims 2-24 fall
with claim 1.

DECISION
The rejection of claims 1-4, 6, 7, 9-12, 14, 15, 17-20, 22, and 23 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Riedlinger and May is
affirmed.
The rejection of claims 5, 13, and 21 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Riedlinger, May, and Masri is affirmed.
The rejection of claims 8, 16, and 24 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Riedlinger, May, and Tanabe is affirmed.
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.
§ 41.50(f).

AFFIRMED

msc

IBM CORPORATION, INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW
DEPT 917, BLDG. 006-1
3605 HIGHWAY 52 NORTH
ROCHESTER MN 55901-7829