Ex parte O'Brien

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Aug 18, 1999

08359286 (B.P.A.I. Aug. 18, 1999)

Application for patent filed December 19, 1994.1
1
THIS OPINION WAS NOT WRITTEN FOR PUBLICATION
The opinion in support of the decision being entered today
(1) was not written for publication in a law journal and
(2) is not binding precedent of the Board.
Paper No. 16
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_____________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
_____________
Ex parte RITA M. O'BRIEN
_____________
Appeal No. 97-2657
Application 08/359,2861
______________
HEARD: August 5, 1999
_______________
Before KRASS, FLEMING and FRAHM, Administrative Patent Judges.
FLEMING, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal No. 97-2657
Application 08/359,286
2
This is a decision on appeal from the final rejec-
tion of claims 1 through 16, all of the claims pending in the
present application.
The invention relates to employing timers to prop-
erly allocate bus access.
Independent claim 1 is reproduced as follows:
1. A bus access arbitration system, comprising:
a bus;
a plurality of devices, at least one of the plural-
ity of devices being associated with a corresponding timer,
the timer being reset to zero each time the at least one
device accesses the bus, such that the timer has a value
indicating an elapsed time since the at least one device last
accessed the bus; and
an arbiter connecting the devices to the bus, the
arbiter granting the devices access to the bus based on the
value of the timer.
The Examiner relies on the following reference:
Watanabe 5,499,345 Mar. 12, 1996
(effective filing date Oct. 2, 1992)
Appeal No. 97-2657
Application 08/359,286
Appellant filed an appeal brief on December 9, 1996. 2
Appellant filed a reply brief on April 21, 1997. On July 14,
1997, the Examiner sent a letter stating that the reply brief
filed has been entered and considered but no further response
by the Examiner is deemed necessary.
3
Claims 1 through 16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as being unpatentable over Watanabe.
Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellant and
the Examiner, reference is made to the briefs and answer for2
the respective details thereof.
OPINION
We will not sustain the rejection of claims 1
through 16 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
The Examiner has failed to set forth a prima facie
case. It is the burden of the Examiner to establish why one
having ordinary skill in the art would have been led to the
claimed invention by the express teachings or suggestions
found in the prior art, or by implications contained in such
teachings or suggestions. In re Sernaker, 702 F.2d 989, 995,
217 USPQ 1, 6 (Fed. Cir. 1983). "Additionally, when determin-
Appeal No. 97-2657
Application 08/359,286
4
ing obviousness, the claimed invention should be considered as
a whole; there is no legally recognizable 'heart' of the
invention." Para-Ordnance Mfg. v. SGS Importers Int'l, Inc.,
73 F.3d 1085, 1087, 37 USPQ2d 1237, 1239 (Fed. Cir. 1995),
cert. denied, 117 S.Ct. 80 (1996) citing W. L. Gore & Assoc.,
Inc. v. Garlock, Inc., 721 F.2d 1540, 1548, 220 USPQ 303, 309
(Fed. Cir. 1983), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 851 (1984).
On page 5 of the brief, Appellant argues that
Watanabe fails to teach or suggest "the timer being reset to
zero each time the at least one device accesses the bus, such
that the timer has a value indicating an elapsed time since
the at least
one device last accessed the bus" as recited in Appellant's
claim 1. Appellant further argues that Watanabe fails to
teach "the timer being reset to a previously determined
minimum access interval associated with the at least one
device each time the at least one device accesses the bus, the
timer counting down toward zero" as recited in Appellant's
claim 7. Appellant further argues on page 6 of the brief that
Watanabe fails to teach "resetting the corresponding timer
Appeal No. 97-2657
Application 08/359,286
5
each time its corresponding device accesses the bus" as
recited in claim 12. On pages 9 through 12 of the brief and
in the reply brief, Appellant argues that Watanabe does not
suggest modifying the Watanabe arbitration method or apparatus
to become Appellant's invention.
Upon a close review of Watanabe, we fail to find
that Watanabe teaches or suggests a timer that has a value
indicating
an elapsed time since the at least one device last accessed
the bus and an arbiter granting the device accessed the bus
based upon the value of the timer. We note that the Watanabe
abstract states that the counter section counts the duration
of the bus occupation of the bus master. Watanabe further
teaches that priority is given to the bus master with the
shortest occupation time. We further note in column 2, lines
20-30, that Watanabe
teaches a counter section 5 for counting each duration of bus
Appeal No. 97-2657
Application 08/359,286
6
occupation and an arbiter 6 for giving an allowance signal to
a particular bus master selected on the basis of bus
occupation time from the counter 5 and bus request signals
from the bus master.
The Federal Circuit states that "[t]he mere fact
that the prior art may be modified in the manner suggested by
the Examiner does not make the modification obvious unless the
prior art suggested the desirability of the modification." In
re Fritch, 972 F.2d 1260, 1266 n.14, 23 USPQ2d 1780, 1783-84
n.14 (Fed. Cir. 1992), citing In re Gordon, 733 F.2d 900, 902,
221 USPQ 1125, 1127 (Fed. Cir. 1984).
We fail to find that Watanabe suggests modifying the
arbitration system which is based upon bus duration times to
an
arbitration system based upon minimum access intervals
associated with the device and timers which keep track of the
elapsed time since each device last has had access to the bus.
Therefore, we will not sustain the Examiner's rejection of
claims 1 through 16 as being unpatentable over Watanabe under
35 U.S.C. § 103.
Appeal No. 97-2657
Application 08/359,286
7
We have not sustained the rejection of claims 1
through 16 under 35 U.S.C. § 103. Accordingly, the Examiner's
decision is reversed.
REVERSED
ERROL A. KRASS )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
) BOARD OF
PATENT
MICHAEL R. FLEMING ) APPEALS AND
Administrative Patent Judge )
INTERFERENCES
)
)
)
ERIC FRAHM )
Administrative Patent Judge )
Appeal No. 97-2657
Application 08/359,286
8
MRF:psb
Foley & Lardner
3000 K Street, N.W.
Suite 500
P.O. Box 25696
Washington, D.C. 20007-8696