Ex Parte Reed et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jan 14, 2014

10866461 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 14, 2014)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte COKE S. REED and DAVID MURPHY

____________

Appeal 2011-006806
Application 10/866,4611
Technology Center 2400
____________

Before JASON V. MORGAN, JOHN A. EVANS, and
DANIEL N. FISHMAN, Administrative Patent Judges.

EVANS, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) involving claims to
scalable distributed parallel access memory systems with internet routing
applications. The Examiner has rejected the claims as obvious. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.

1 The Real Party in Interest is Interactic Holdings, LLC.
Appeal 2011-006806
Application 10/866,461

2
Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellants and the Examiner,
we refer to the Appeal Brief (filed Nov. 5, 2010), the Answer (mailed Dec.
23, 2010), and the Reply Brief (filed Feb. 23, 2011).

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The claims relate to a system wherein a memory controller,
comprising logic that creates a representation of a tree structure in memory,
separates a memory into multiple banks and enables a plurality of selected
banks to be accessed concurrently. See Abstract.
Claims 1-33 are on appeal. Claims 1 and 17 are independent. An
understanding of the invention can be derived from a reading of exemplary
claim 1, which is reproduced below with disputed limitations italicized:
1. A system comprising:
a memory controller in a router that separates a memory
into multiple banks and enables a plurality of selected banks to
be accessed concurrently, the memory controller further
comprising:
logic that creates a representation of a tree structure in
memory and builds routing tables accessed by pointers at nodes
in the tree memory structure;
logic that finds a target memory address based on a
received Internet Protocol (IP) address used by the tree memory
structure and the routing table;
logic that uses route packets received by the memory
controller from a downstream router downstream of the router
to add nodes to the tree structure and add data to the routing
table, the route packets comprising information for
conditionally forming the nodes based on mutual comparison of
Appeal 2011-006806
Application 10/866,461

3
the route packets, the information comprising at least a value
(Val) field indicating a measure of worth of an output port; and
logic that traverses the tree memory structure and updates
the value (Val) field as the tree memory structure is traversed.

The Examiner relies on prior art as follows:
Hariguchi
Hooper
US 6,665,297 B1
US 7,111,071 B1
Filed Dec. 9, 1999
Filed June 29, 2000
Yuan US 6,178,163 B1 Jan. 23, 2001
Hughes
Templin
US 6,308,219 B1
US 2001/0040895 A1
Oct. 23, 2001
Nov. 15, 2001
Ivers US 2003/0152266 A1 Filed Jan. 7, 2003

The claims stand rejected as follows:2
1. Claims 1 and 5-33 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious
over Hughes, Hooper, Yuan, and Templin. Ans. 4-17.
2. Claim 2 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over
Hughes, Hooper, Yuan, Templin, and Ivers. Ans. 17-18.
3. Claims 3 and 4 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious
over Hughes, Hooper, Yuan, Templin, and Hariguchi. Ans. 18-20.

2 Based on Appellants’ arguments in the Appeal Brief, we will decide the
appeal on the basis of claims as set forth below. See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(1)(vii).

Appeal 2011-006806
Application 10/866,461

4
CLAIMS 1 AND 5-33
Issues and Analysis
Route Packets
We agree with Appellants’ contention that the combination of
Hughes, Hooper, Yuan, and Templin fails to disclose “logic that uses route
packets received by the memory controller from a downstream router
downstream of the router to add nodes to the tree structure . . . ,” as recited
in Claim 1. Appellants contend that “route packets” are distinguished from
“data packets” as being defined explicitly in the claims as packets received
from a router downstream of the receiving router used to add nodes to the
tree structure and data to the routing table. According to the claimed system,
tree structures are updated or modified based on information carried by route
packets (and not data packets) received from downstream of the receiving
router. In contrast, Hughes only discloses conventional data packets and
fails to disclose either route packets or their defining downstream source of
information for generating or modifying the tree structures. App. Br. 6-7.
The Examiner finds that Hughes teaches packets that are sent to a
target machine via 1 or more routers, the header information can consists of
various elements including source, destination, priority, quality of service,
and other informational elements. The Examiner finds that Hughes’ packet
header is defined substantially identically to Appellants’ definition of “route
packet” which comprises an “RV” field which can hold various types of data
relating to the time / distance / hops from source to destination Ans. 20.
Appeal 2011-006806
Application 10/866,461

5
Appellants contend that Hughes does not disclose route packets, as
claimed (which are received from the downstream routers), but rather
describes a header for data packets which are conventionally used for
routing data through a network (and not for generating or modifying the tree
structure). Hughes refers to the header information only for the functionality
of routing the data and not for generating or modifying the tree structure.
Hughes does describe the function of dynamically reallocating nodes in the
tree structure, but this is not done using routing packets as applicants have
claimed and is rather performed by recording the root node in each memory
bank (col. 5, lines 32-34), copying frequently referenced nodes to multiple
memory banks, and determining whether particular memory banks have
recorded nodes that are collectively relatively infrequently or relatively
frequently referenced, all of which is irrelevant to usage of routing packets
from downstream routers. Reply Br. 7-8.
The dispositive issue is whether the combination of Hughes, Hooper,
Yuan, and Templin discloses “logic that uses route packets received by the
memory controller from a downstream router downstream of the router to
add nodes to the tree structure . . . ,” as recited in Claim 1. We agree with
Appellants that the cited combination fails to so disclose.
The Examiner finds that Appellants’ Specification not provide a
limiting definition of a “downstream router” and finds that “downstream” is
relative to the router you are looking at, as such, a packet coming from
router A to router B on its way to its destination while at router B can be
Appeal 2011-006806
Application 10/866,461

6
considered as being upstream from router A or, as the packet came from
router A, router A is downstream from router B (at least for that packets
journey). Ans. 21. Appellants reply that a person of ordinary skill in the art
would interpret “downstream router” to be a router downstream relative to
the flow of data (the flow of data packets), and not, as does the Examiner, to
be relative to “the router you are looking at.” Reply Br. 9. We agree with
Appellants. Appellants definition of “downstream” is consistent with the
definitions provided by The Microsoft Computer Dictionary, which defines
“downstream” as relative to the flow of information.3 Consistent with the
industry standard, Appellants’ define “downstream” such that it retains a
constant direction, e.g., the “direction in which data moves from the server
to the client.”4 In contrast, the Examiner’s proffered definition is
inconsistent, unpredictable, and is not supported by an evidentiary basis.
Therefore, we decline to sustain the rejection of Claims 1 and 5-33.

CLAIMS 2-4
ISSUES AND ANALYSIS
Route Packets

3 Downstream1. n. The direction in which information . . . , or data from a[]
server, is passed from one server to the next. Downstream2. adv. The
direction in which data moves from the server to the client. Downstream3.
adj. Refers to data that moves from a remote network to an individual
computer. Microsoft Computer Dictionary, 5th ed., 175-6 (2002).
4 Id.
Appeal 2011-006806
Application 10/866,461

7
For the reasons discussed above, we decline to sustain the rejection of
Claims 2-4 which depend from Claim 1.

ORDER
The rejection of claims 1-33 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is REVERSED.

REVERSED

ke

Appeal 2011-006806
Application 10/866,461

8