Ex Parte Noyes

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

May 10, 2016

12325986 (P.T.A.B. May. 10, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
12/325,986 12/01/2008 Harold B Noyes
52142 7590 05/12/2016
FLETCHER YODER (MICRON TECHNOLOGY, INC)
P.O. BOX 692289
HOUSTON, TX 77269-2289
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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
2008-0379 I MICS:0279 2583
EXAMINER
MAMO, ELIAS
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2184
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/12/2016 ELECTRONIC
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.
Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the
following e-mail address( es):
docket@fyiplaw.com
manware@fyiplaw.com
s trickland @fyiplaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte HAROLD B. NOYES
Appeal2014-009078
Application 12/325,986
Technology Center 2100
Before ST. JOHN COURTENAY III, CATHERINE SHIANG,
and LINZY McCARTNEY, Administrative Patent Judges.
COURTENAY, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's Final
Rejection of claims 1-26. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We affirm.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Invention
The invention on appeal relates "generally to pattern-recognition
processors and, more specifically ... to the synchronization of direct
memory access controlled operations of[] pattern-recognition processors."
(Spec. if 1 ).
Appeal2014-009078
Application 12/325,986
Representative Claims 1 and 7
1. An electronic device, comprising:
a plurality of pattern-recognition processors, wherein each
of the plurality of pattern-recognition processors is configured to
[L 1] simultaneously search a data stream received by the
plurality of pattern-recognition processors, wherein each of the
plurality of pattern-recognition processors comprises [L2] a
dedicated parallel direct memory access (PDMA) master/slave
input adapted to place that processor into a master or a slave
mode, and a PDMA cycle connection adapted to transmit a direct
memory access cycle from that processor, when placed into a
master mode, to each of the plurality of pattern-recognition
processors placed into a slave mode concurrently.
(Emphasis added regarding contested limitations LI and L2).
7. An electronic system for processmg data in parallel
compnsmg:
a processing unit adapted to activate a direct memory
access (DMA) master device; and
a plurality of processing circuits adapted to [L3] search a
data stream, received by the plurality of processing circuits,
concurrently and independently of the processor, wherein the
plurality of processing circuits includes [L4] the DMA master
device and one or more DMA slave devices adapted to
concurrently respond to DMA bus cycles.
(Emphasis added regarding contested limitations L3 and L4 ).
Rejections
A. Claims 1-5 and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over the
combined teachings and suggestions of McNeill (US 4,876,643; iss. Oct. 24,
1989), in view of Johnson (US 5,357,626; iss. Oct. 18, 1994), and further in
view of Kranich (US 2008/0301408 Al; pub. Dec. 4, 2008).
2
Appeal2014-009078
Application 12/325,986
B. Claims 7-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over the combined
teachings and suggestions ofMcNeill in view of Bernard (US 7,827,168 B2;
iss. Nov. 2, 2010).
C. Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over the combined
teachings and suggestions ofMcNeill, in view of Johnson, and Kranich, and
further in view of Wunderlich (US 6,122,679; Sep. 19, 2000).
Grouping of Claims
Based on Appellant's arguments, we decide the appeal of Rejection A
of claims 1-3, 5, and 26 on the basis of representative claim 1. We address
Rejection A of dependent claim 4 separately, infra. Also based upon
Appellant's arguments, we decide the appeal of Rejection B of claims 7-9,
11-19, 21-23, and 25, on the basis of representative claim 7. We address
claims 10, 20, and 24, also rejected under Rejection B, infra. We address
Rejection C of claim 6, infra. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv).
ANALYSIS
We have considered all of Appellant's arguments and any evidence
presented. We disagree with Appellant's arguments, and 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 and rebuttals set forth in
the Answer in response to Appellant's arguments. However, we highlight
and address specific findings and arguments for emphasis in our analysis
below.
At the outset, we observe Appellant's principal arguments urging
reversal of the Examiner's rejections adopt a pattern of attacking the
references in isolation, instead of considering the respective teachings and
3
Appeal2014-009078
Application 12/325,986
suggestions of the cited references in combination. (See e.g., App. Br. 8-12
and 15-17). In reviewing these arguments, we remain mindful of the
Supreme Court's guidance concerning "the need for caution in granting a
patent based on the combination of elements found in the prior art." KSR v.
Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415 (2007). "The combination of familiar
elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does
no more than yield predictable results." Id. at 416. When a rejection under
§ 103 is based on a combination of familiar elements, one cannot show
nonobviousness by attacking references individually. See In re Merck & Co.,
Inc., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed Cir. 1986).
Combinability under 35 USC § 103
As a threshold issue, we decide the question of whether the Examiner
erred by improperly combining the cited references under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Appellant particularly contends combining Kranich with McN eill "would
appear to impermissibly destroy the operation of l\1cNeill (that specifically
allows for a master processor to disperse and coordinate searches amongst
slave processors) ... [by] "remov[ing] the ability of the master processor to
operate in the manner set forth by McNeill." (App. Br. 11 ).
We do not find this argument persuasive. As the Examiner explains,
the proposed combination merely involves adding the functionality of
Kranich to McNeill, such that "the master processor would also have the
capability of dispersing some of the searching responsibilities on itself," in
addition to the slave processors ... [to] "further 'improve response time to a
search request.' (McNeill, col. 1, lines 57-58)." (Ans. 22) (Emphasis
added).
4
Appeal2014-009078
Application 12/325,986
ivioreover, Appellant provides no evidence that combining the
respective teachings of the references cited by the Examiner would have
been "uniquely challenging or difficult for one of ordinary skill in the art."
Leapfrog Enters., Inc. v. Fisher-Price, Inc., 485 F.3d 1157, 1162 (Fed. Cir.
2007).
Therefore, for essentially the same reasons articulated by the
Examiner in the Answer (22), we find Appellant's arguments unavailing
regarding the combinability of the cited references. Accordingly, we find
the Examiner has not erred by improperly combining the cited references
under§ 103.
Rejection A of Claims 1-3, 5, and 26 under§ 103
Issue: Did the Examiner err in finding the combination of McNeill,
Johnson, and Kranich would have taught or suggested contested limitations
L 1 and L2, within the meaning of representative claim 1? 1
Claim 1 - Contested Limitation LI
When claim 1 is considered as a whole, limitation LI requires "each
of a plurality of pattern-recognition processors is configured to
simultaneously search a data stream," regardless of which processor has
been "placed into a master mode" or "placed into a slave mode." (Emphasis
added). The Examiner finds an artisan would have been motivated to
modify McNeill's master processor, which directs a plurality of slave
1 We interpret the contested claim limitations according to the broadest
reasonable interpretation consistent with the Specification. See In re Morris,
127 F.3d 1048, 1054 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
5
Appeal2014-009078
Application 12/325,986
' 1 1 ' 1 1 • 1 ' 1 ,.., /T"""'I. 1 • ' " / • ' • processors to searcn aataoase recoras snnunaneous1y ~ ~t