Ex Parte Rachlin

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Nov 30, 2018

14622465 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 30, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
14/622,465 02/13/2015
92720 7590
HONEYWELL/MUN CK
Patent Services
115 Tabor Road
P.O. Box 377
MORRIS PLAINS, NJ 07950
12/04/2018
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Elliott Rachlin
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.
H0046500-0104 8754
EXAMINER
LYONS, ANDREW M
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2191
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/04/2018 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):
patentservices-us@honeywell.com
patents@munckwilson.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte ELLIOTT RACHLIN 1
Appeal2018-003979
Application 14/622,465
Technology Center 2100
Before JASON V. MORGAN, MICHAEL M. BARRY, and
JOHN R. KENNY, Administrative Patent Judges.
BARRY, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of
claims 1-20, which are all the pending claims (see Final Act. 1 and App. Br.
22-26 (Claims App'x)). We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.
1 The Appeal Brief identifies the Applicant, Honeywell International, Inc., as
the real party in interest (i.e., the "Appellant"). App. Br. 2.
Appeal2018-003979
Application 14/622,465
Introduction
Appellant describes the invention as relating to "managing a plurality
of threads in an operating system." Spec. ,r 1.
Claims 1 and 11 are independent, and claim 1 is illustrative of the
claims on appeal:
1. A method for managing a plurality of threads, the
method comprising:
providing an environment associated with an operating
system to execute one or more threads of the plurality of
threads, the environment comprising a plurality of virtual
priorities and a plurality of actual priorities, wherein each of the
plurality of threads selects a virtual priority of the plurality of
virtual priorities to be assigned, wherein the plurality of virtual
priorities comprises a broader range of values than the plurality
of actual priorities;
assigning, by the operating system, the plurality of virtual
priorities to the plurality of threads;
associating an actual priority of the plurality of actual
priorities to one of the plurality of threads based on the plurality
of virtual priorities assigned to the plurality of threads; and
executing the one of the plurality of threads associated
with the actual priority.
App. Br. 22 (Claims App'x).
Re} ections & References
Claims 1, 2, 11, and 12 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I02(a)(l) as
anticipated by Levitan (US 2010/0050178 Al, pub. Feb. 25, 2010). Final
Act. 3-5.
Claims 3-5, 10, 13-15, and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as unpatentable over Levitan and Zolnowsky (US 6,779,182 Bl, issued Aug.
17, 2004). Final Act. 6-11.
2
Appeal2018-003979
Application 14/622,465
Claims 6 and 16 stand rejected under § 103 as unpatentable over
Levitan and Endo (US 7,047,321 Bl; issued May 16, 2006). Final Act. 11-
12.
Claims 7 and 17 stand rejected under § 103 as unpatentable over
Levitan, Endo, and Zolnowsky. Final Act. 12-13.
Claims 8 and 18 stand rejected under § 103 as unpatentable over
Levitan and Yamauchi (US 2014/0310723 Al; pub. Oct 16, 2014). Final
Act. 14--15.
Claims 9 and 19 stand rejected under § 103 as unpatentable over
Levitan and Hokenek (US 2004/0073910 Al; pub. Apr. 15, 2004). Final
Act. 15-16.
ANALYSIS
Appellant argues the Examiner errs in rejecting claim 1 as anticipated
because Levitan does not disclose
an environment associated with an operating system ...
comprising a plurality of virtual priorities and a plurality of
actual priorities, wherein each of the plurality of threads selects
a virtual priority of the plurality of virtual priorities to be
assigned, wherein the plurality of virtual priorities comprises a
broader range of values than the plurality of actual priorities,
as recited. See App. Br. 8-11; Reply Br. 2-7. On the record before us,
Appellant's argument is persuasive.
In rejecting claim 1, the Examiner finds the recited virtual priorities
correspond to the application thread priorities disclosed in Levitan, and the
recited actual priorities correspond to Levitan's normalized thread priorities.
Final Act. 3--4 (citing Levitan ,r,r 32-33, 41); see also Ans. 16. Accepting
this mapping, at least arguendo, Appellant contends the Examiner errs
3
Appeal2018-003979
Application 14/622,465
because the cited teachings of Levitan specifically fail to disclose claim 1 's
requirement for the plurality of virtual priorities to comprise a broader range
of values than the plurality of actual priorities. See App. Br. 10-11. In
particular, Appellant contends that, contrary to the disputed limitation, the
cited disclosure of Levitan teaches using a table 408 in Figure 4 that has a
range of eight normalized ("actual") priority values that correspond to a
range of six application thread ("virtual") priority values.
The Examiner answers that "Levitan does not disclose, teach or
suggest that the number of application thread priorities is limited in any
fashion" and that, "accordingly, it is not inconsistent with the disclosure of
Levitan to find that it teaches any number of application thread priorities,
including numbers that may be less than, equal to, or greater than the
number of normalized priorities." Ans. 17 (further finding that in Levitan's
,r 39, "it is at least suggested that" the normalized priorities can be in the
range from O to 2). As Appellant replies, however, and we agree, "[ s ]imply
because a reference fails to [ disclose or teach] it cannot perform the claimed
feature does not qualify as a teaching or showing of such feature to satisfy
the requirements of 35 U.S.C. §102." Reply Br. 5 (emphasis omitted).
Anticipation is a strict standard that requires finding each and every
element as set forth in the claim, expressly or inherently, in a single prior art
reference. Verdegaal Bros., Inc. v. Union Oil. Co. of Cal., 814 F.2d 628,
631 (Fed. Cir. 1987). The reference must "clearly and unequivocally
disclose the claimed [invention J or direct those skilled in the art to the
[ invention] without any need for picking, choosing, and combining various
disclosures not directly related to each other by the teachings of the cited
4
Appeal2018-003979
Application 14/622,465
reference." Net Money!N, Inc. v. VeriSign, Inc., 545 F.3d 1359, 1371 (Fed.
Cir. 2008) (quoting In re Arkley, 455 F.2d 586, 587 (CCPA 1972)).
Here, we agree with Appellant that the Examiner has not made
findings sufficient to establish Levitan's Figures 3 and 4 and the cited
discussion in Levitan's specification disclose, as required by 35 U.S.C.
§ 102, a broader range of values for the virtual priorities than for the actual
priorities, as recited. 2 Accordingly, we do not sustain the 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(a)(l) rejection of claim 1 and, for the same reasons, of claim 11. The
Examiner makes no findings in the rejections of the dependent claims 2-10
and 12-20 to cure the deficiency in the rejection of the independent claims 1
and 11 and, accordingly, we also, likewise, do not sustain the rejection of the
dependent claims.
DECISION
We reverse the Examiner's 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(l) and§ 103 rejections
of claims 1-20.
2 Appellant and the Examiner should ensure that the meaning of the
"wherein the plurality of virtual priorities comprises a broader range of
values than the plurality of actual priorities" recitation is unambiguous in
light of the Specification's cited disclosures (App. Br. 4) regarding both: (1)
the use of "an unlimited number of virtual priorities" in an environment that
includes "a limited number of actual priorities" (Spec. ,r 27) and (2) virtual
priorities that can have smaller and greater lower and upper values (0 and
255 respectively) than the actual priorities lower and upper values (1 and 4)
(id. ,r,r 27-28). Our understanding is that only the second disclosure is
relevant to the meaning of a broader range, as the first disclosure relates to
the cardinalities of the sets of potential virtual and actual priorities rather
than to their ranges. If there is evidence of record that the claimed broader
range is also or instead directed to these cardinalities, then appropriate
language to clarify the scope of the claimed invention is recommended.
5
Appeal2018-003979
Application 14/622,465
REVERSED
6