Ex Parte Meyer et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 26, 2013

11318356 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 26, 2013)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte JAMES W. MEYER and CORY KANSKI
____________________

Appeal 2010-008708
Application 11/318,356
Technology Center 2100
____________________

Before: ERIC B. CHEN, JOHNNY A. KUMAR, and
MICHAEL J. STRAUSS, Administrative Patent Judges.

STRAUSS, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2010-008708
Application 11/318,356

2
STATEMENT OF CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a final rejection of
claims 39-63. Claims 1-38 have been canceled. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.

The claims are directed to an arbitration system and method for
memory responses in a hub-based memory system. Claim 39, reproduced
below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
39. A method of processing and forwarding memory responses
in a memory system including a plurality of memory modules,
each memory module including a memory hub coupled to
memory devices, and the method comprising:
storing local memory responses having data retrieved
from the memory devices, the local memory responses made in
response to associated memory requests requesting the retrieved
data from the memory devices;
storing downstream memory responses having data
retrieved from downstream memory modules, the downstream
memory responses made in response to associated memory
requests requesting data from the downstream memory
modules;
applying in each hub an independent arbitration
algorithm to determine an order in which the stored local and
downstream memory responses are forwarded to an upstream
memory module; and
forwarding the local and downstream memory responses
upstream according to the determined order.

REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Appeal 2010-008708
Application 11/318,356

3
Talbot US 6,272,600 B1 Aug. 7, 2001
Sah US 2003/0177320 A1 Sep. 18, 2003

REJECTIONS1
The Examiner made the following rejections:
Claims 39-44, 47, 48, 50-52, 54-56, 58-60, 62 and 63 stand rejected
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being anticipated by Sah. Ans. 3.
Claims 45, 46, 49, 53, 57 and 61 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Sah and Talbot. Ans. 9.

ISSUE2
Appellants present the issue whether Sah discloses arbitrating between
local and downstream memory responses and forwarding the responses
upstream according to the arbitration rule thereby anticipating claim 39
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e).

ANALYSIS
Appellants contend that “while [Sah] discusses modifying the order of
read and write requests, arbitrating between local and downstream memory
responses and forwarding the responses upstream according to the
arbitration rule is not disclosed.” App. Br. 12 (emphasis added.) In
particular, Appellants argue that:
The reordering of read and write transactions described
in paragraphs 177 -180 [of Sah] does not disclose the

1 Based on the dependencies of the claims and the dispositive issue, we
decide the appeal of the rejection of claims 39-63 on the basis of claim 39.
2 We note that Appellants’ arguments present additional issues; however, we
do not reach these issues, as this issue is dispositive of the appeal.
Appeal 2010-008708
Application 11/318,356

4
application in each hub of an independent arbitration algorithm
or the forwarding of local and downstream memory responses
according to a determined order. As argued previously, the read
and write transactions that are re-ordered as described in
paragraphs 177-180 have yet to be executed by a memory.
Consequently, the reordering of read and write transactions is
not analogous to applying an independent algorithm to
determine the order in which local and downstream memory
responses are forwarded upstream, as recited in claim 39
because neither the read nor write transactions have “data
retrieved” from a memory.
App. Br. 12.
We agree with Appellants. Although the Examiner finds that “every
request must have a response, otherwise reading and writing of memory
would not occur” and “[t]he cited paragraphs clearly show that the requests
and responses ‘share the same medium’ which means that Sah can use
requests and responses interchangeably and are queued together” (Ans. 11),
the cited portions of Sah only disclose that the re-order queues are filled with
requests with no mention of responses. Sah para. [0177] – [0180].
Therefore, even if we were to accept that “every request must have a
response” as asserted by the Examiner, Sah specifically discloses re-ordering
of requests without mentioning responses. Failing to disclose determining
an order in which stored local and downstream memory responses are
forwarded, the Sah disclosure fails to anticipate claim 39.
Accordingly, we will not sustain the rejection of claim 39 under 35
U.S.C. § 102(e) and, for the same reason, we will not sustain the rejection of
independent claims 48, 52, 56 and 60 and dependent claims 40-44, 47, 50,
51, 54, 55, 58, 59, 62 and 63. Furthermore, we will not sustain the rejection
of claims 45, 46, 49, 53, 57 and 61 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
Appeal 2010-008708
Application 11/318,356

5
unpatentable over Sah and Talbot, as the Talbot reference fails to cure the
deficiency in the base rejection addressed supra.

CONCLUSION
Appellants have persuaded us of error in the Examiner’s decision to
reject claims 39-44, 47, 48, 50-52, 54-56, 58-60, 62 and 63 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(e) as being anticipated by Sah and claims 45, 46, 49, 53, 57 and 61
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Sah and Talbot. Thus, we will not sustain the
Examiner's rejections of claims 39-63.

DECISION
The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 39-63 is reversed.

REVERSED

msc