Ex Parte Narad

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Aug 30, 2012

10406798 (B.P.A.I. Aug. 30, 2012)

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.
10/406,798 04/02/2003 Charles E. Narad 042390.P13308 9605
45209 7590 08/30/2012
Mission/BSTZ
BLAKELY SOKOLOFF TAYLOR & ZAFMAN
1279 Oakmead Parkway
Sunnyvale, CA 94085-4040
EXAMINER
TSAI, SHENG JEN
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2186
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/30/2012 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 CHARLES E. NARAD
____________
Appeal 2010-005080
Application 10/406,798
Technology Center 2100
____________

Before MAHSHID D. SAADAT, ROBERT E. NAPPI, and
JOHNNY A. KUMAR, Administrative Patent Judges.

KUMAR, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal 2010-005080
Application 10/406,798

2
I. STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
rejection of claim 1. Br. 2-3. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
Claims 2-54 have been cancelled.
We affirm.
Appellant’s Invention
Appellant’s invention pertains to cache allocation that is configured to
allow an external agent to request data be placed into the cache memory and
to allow a processor to cause data to be pulled into the cache memory (see
Abstract).
Claim on Appeal
1. A system comprising:
a processor bank comprising one or more processors;
a main memory;
one or more processor caches configured to cache data
from said main memory in said one or more processor caches,
only for said processor bank;
wherein said processor bank is configured to only use
said one or more processor caches when reading or writing
cached data; and
an external agent comprising a first interface and a
second interface, wherein said first interface comprises a
network interface, and said second interface comprises no
network interface;
wherein said external agent receives network data packet
from said first interface via said network interface, said external
agent directly pushes a first portion of said network data packet
only into said one or more processor caches from said second
interface, and said external agent directly pushes a second
portion of said network data packet only into said main
memory; and
Appeal 2010-005080
Application 10/406,798

3
wherein said external agent is external to a set of
components, said set of components comprises said processor
bank, said main memory, and said one or more processor
caches.

Prior Art Relied Upon
Bohrer US 6,711,650 B1 Mar. 24, 2004
(filed Nov. 7, 2002)

Worley US 2003/0177175 A1 Sep. 18, 2003
(filed Apr. 26, 2002)

Rejection on Appeal
Claim 1 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Bohrer in view of Worley. Ans. 3-6.

Examiner’s Findings and Conclusions
1. The Examiner finds that Bohrer (Bohrer col. 3, lines 7-62; Fig.
2), teaches how data packets are transferred over a network and received by
the local memory, as required by claim 1. Ans. 9. The Examiner also finds
that Worley teaches data transmitted in the form of packets. Id. at 9 (citing
Worley ¶0003).1
2. The Examiner further finds that the Worley teaches receiving
data from a network where a page file is partitioned (categorized) into a first
portion of cacheable portion and a second portion of non-cacheable portion.

1 Even though the Examiner may have misquoted the interpretation of
“network data packet” limitation of claim 1 in the Answer (see Appellant’s
Interview Summary of March 2, 2010 and February 24, 2010), it was
harmless error because we can determine what claim 1 requires. As such, we
do not rely on the Examiner’s interpretation of this term included in the
Answer.
Appeal 2010-005080
Application 10/406,798

4
Id. at 8. The cacheable portion corresponds to the static portion of the page
data, and the non-cacheable portion corresponds to the dynamic portion of
the page data. Id. In addition, Worley demonstrates “updating the dynamic
data portion of the HTML file without updating the static portion of the
HTML file cached at the second computer” in order to more efficiently
refresh displayed web page. (Ans. 9 (citing Worley ¶0016)).” Id. (emphasis
omitted). Thus, the Examiner finds that Worley teaches or suggests storing
the “cacheable” (i.e., static) portion only in a cache memory, and storing the
“non-cacheable” (i.e., dynamic) portions only in a main memory. Id. at 8-9.
2. The Examiner finds that Worley teaches that the motivation or
advantage of treating data as either cacheable or non-cacheable includes
reducing the amount of data/information that needs to be transmitted. Ans.
10. The Examiner further finds that the reduction of amount of data to be
transmitted would benefit Bohrer’s data transmission scheme, because figure
2 of Bohrer shows that in order for data to be transmitted to the cache
memory [22] and the main memory [24], both memories have to go through
the commonly shared I/O bus [27], bus bridge [26] and the interconnect
[23]. Thus, reducing the amount of data to be transmitted to the cache
memory and the main memory, respectively, would alleviate the traffic loads
and facilitate more efficient usage of the bandwidth of the bus, bridge and
interconnect. Id. at 10-11.

Appellant’s Contentions
Appellant contends that:
1. Worley does not teach or suggest “packetizing data for
communication in network 240 and/or any particular techniques for the
Appeal 2010-005080
Application 10/406,798

5
treatment of specific portions of packetized data received from network 240
via a network interface.” Br. 4. Specifically, “Worley fails to teach or
suggest whether or how such treatment might include directly pushing a first
portion of the network data packet only into one or more processor caches
and directly pushing a second portion of the same network data packet only
into a main memory.” Id. at 5.
2. There is a lack of motivation to combine the cited references to
practice Applicant’s claimed invention. Id. at 5-6. Further, the Examiner’s
position to combine Bohrer would effectively change Bohrer’s principle of
operation. Id. at 6. In other words, the teachings of Worley are not
consistent with the teachings of Bohrer because
[w]hereas Bohrer relates to allocating a line in cache memory 22
to store some version of data which is being written to system
memory 24, Worley stores what is referred to as “cacheable”
static data which has been distinguished from - and separated
into separate files from - what is referred to as “non-cacheable”
dynamic data. In other words, the “cacheable” static data of a
skeleton file in Worley is not some cached version of “non-
cacheable” dynamic data stored in the dynamic data file.

Id. Also, the “alleged combination of (1) operations in Bohrer to store in a
cache a version of data which is written to a main memory, and (2)
operations in Worley to store in a cache data which is expressly
distinguished from data which is written to main memory[,]” would “change
the principle of operation of one or both of Bohrer and Worley.” Id.

Appeal 2010-005080
Application 10/406,798

6
II. ISSUES
Did the Examiner err in rejecting claim 1 as being obvious because
the combination of Bohrer and Worley fails to teach or suggest the argued
features? In particular, the issue turns on whether:
(a) the proffered combination teaches or suggests “wherein said
external agent receives network data packet from said first interface via said
network interface,” as recited in claim 1(emphasis added); and
(b) the Examiner provides an articulated reasoning with some
rationale underpinning to combine Bohrer and Worley, and whether
modifying Bohrer with the teachings of Worley would effectively change
Bohrer’s principle of operation.

III. ANALYSIS
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) Rejection—Combination of Bohrer and Worley
We have reviewed the Examiner's rejections in light of Appellant’s
arguments that the Examiner has erred. We disagree with Appellant’s
conclusions. We adopt as our own (1) the findings and reasons set forth by
the Examiner in the action from which this appeal is taken and (2) the
reasons set forth by the Examiner in the Examiner’s Answer in response to
Appellant’s Appeal Brief. We concur with the conclusions reached by the
Examiner.
With regard to Appellant’s first contention, we agree with the
Examiner’s finding that Bohrer teaches network data packets and Worley
teaches data transmission in the form of packets that are
partitioned/categorized and treated differently. Id. at 7-9. As such, Worley
provides a data transmission context in which packeted data is treated
Appeal 2010-005080
Application 10/406,798

7
differently based on its category. Worley, ¶¶ 0013, 0016. In other words,
Worley provides a data transmission environment in which transmission of
categorized and packeted data is useful. As such, we find that the
combination of Bohrer and Worley teaches the claimed element “wherein
said external agent receives network data packet from said first interface via
said network interface,” as recited in claim 1.
We also find that the teaching value of Worley is in how to separate
data so that the first portion of the network data packet (static/cacheable) is
pushed only to the cache and the second portion of the network data packet
(dynamic/non-cacheable) is pushed only to main memory. Ans. 8-9. Thus,
we find that Worley teaches or suggests the criteria for dividing the data into
two different portions.
As to Appellant’s contention on page 6 of the Brief relating to the
difference between cacheable/static data and non-cacheable/dynamic data,
even though this distinction may be correct, Appellant’s argument is not
commensurate with the scope of the claim. The claims do not recite why or
how the data is divided into the first portion or the second portion.
Next, we are not persuaded by Appellant’s contention that Bohrer is
not combinable with Worley (Br. 6). Appellant’s citation to Bohrer sections
that explain how data is cached, and to Worley sections about how portions
are separated (one is static and the other is dynamic) amounts to challenging
the references individually which is not convincing of error in the
Examiner's position. That is, all of the features of the structure in the
secondary reference need not be bodily incorporated into the primary
reference, but consideration should be given to what the combined
teachings, knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the art, and the nature of the
Appeal 2010-005080
Application 10/406,798

8
problem to be solved as a whole would have suggested to those of ordinary
skill in the art (see In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981)).
In that regard, the Supreme Court has indicated that:
[It is error to] assum[e] that a person of ordinary skill
attempting to solve a problem will be led only to those elements
of prior art designed to solve the same problem. . . . Common
sense teaches . . . that familiar items may have obvious uses
beyond their primary purposes, and in many cases a person of
ordinary skill will be able to fit the teachings of multiple patents
together like pieces of a puzzle.

KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 420 (2007) (citation omitted).
Furthermore, the artisan is not compelled to blindly follow the
teaching of one prior art reference over the other without the exercise of
independent judgment (see Lear Siegler, Inc. v. Aeroquip Corp., 733 F.2d
881, 889 (Fed. Cir. 1984)). As such, we find that Bohrer would be adjusted
to accommodate teachings from Worley by one of ordinary skill in the art.  
In particular, we find that when Worley explains (as correctly cited by the
Examiner) that the benefit of categorizing and treating data as static or
dynamic reduces the amount of data to be transmitted, one of ordinary skill
would incorporate this concept into Bohrer without incorporating every
feature of the Worley structure into Bohrer. We find that Bohrer would be
adjusted with the partitioning/categorizing teaching from Worley because
the combination as a whole would have taught one of ordinary skill in the art
to make any additional modifications or adjustments to Bohrer that may be
needed to reduce the amount of data to be transmitted.
It follows that the Examiner has not erred in concluding that the
combination of Bohrer and Worley renders claim 1 unpatentable.

Appeal 2010-005080
Application 10/406,798

9
IV. CONCLUSION
The Examiner has not erred in rejecting claim 1 as being unpatentable
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) for the reasons discussed above.

V. DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s decision to reject claim 1.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED

msc