11244482 (B.P.A.I. Aug. 22, 2011)

Ex Parte Rhee

Board of Patent Appeals and InterferencesAug 22, 2011

11244482 (B.P.A.I. Aug. 22, 2011)

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. 11/244,482 10/06/2005 Chae-Eun Rhee 5649-1761 3199 20792 7590 08/22/2011 MYERS BIGEL SIBLEY & SAJOVEC PO BOX 37428 RALEIGH, NC 27627 EXAMINER MISIURA, BRIAN THOMAS ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2111 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 08/22/2011 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 CHAE-EUN RHEE ____________ Appeal 2009-010435 Application 11/244,482 Technology Center 2100 ____________ Before JEAN R. HOMERE, JOHN A. JEFFERY, and DENISE M. POTHIER, Administrative Patent Judges. POTHIER, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-26. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We reverse. Appeal 2009-010435 Application 11/244,482 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellant’s invention relates to on-chip bus architecture of a system-on-chip (SOC) system. See generally Spec. ¶ 0002. Claim 1 is reproduced below with the key disputed limitations emphasized: 1. An on-chip bus comprising: a plurality of switch points including first and second switch points; a plurality of inter-switch links including at least one inter-switch link coupled between the first switch point and the second switch point and configured to communicate data between the first switch point and the second switch point; and a plurality of functional block cores including first and second functional block cores coupled directly to the first switch point and configured to communicate data through the first switch point; wherein data transmitted from the first functional block core to the second functional block core passes through the first switch point without traversing any of the plurality of inter-switch links. The Examiner relies on the following as evidence of unpatentability: Hartmann US 5,908,468 June 1, 1999 Lambrecht US 6,275,975 B1 Aug. 14, 2001 THE REJECTIONS 1. The Examiner rejected claims 1-22 and 24-26 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Lambrecht. Ans. 4-9. 1 2. The Examiner rejected claims 23 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Lambrecht and Hartmann. Ans. 9-10. 1 Throughout this opinion, we refer to (1) the Appeal Brief filed March 6, 2008; (2) the Examiner’s Answer mailed April 30, 2008; and (3) the Reply Brief filed May 21, 2008. Appeal 2009-010435 Application 11/244,482 3 THE OBVIOUSNESS REJECTION OVER LAMBRECHT Regarding independent claim 1, the Examiner finds that Lambrecht discloses all the recited limitations, except for recitation of “data transmitted from the first functional block core to the second functional block core passes through the first switch point without traversing any of the plurality of inter-switch links.” Ans. 4. However, citing to column 7, the Examiner concludes that Lambrecht teaches or suggests connecting modules (i.e., functional block cores) by means that do not necessarily require a bus. Ans. 5, 11-12. Among other arguments, Appellant asserts that Lambrecht does not disclose or teach a single node or switch-point (e.g., 220, 225) coupled to more than one module or functional block core (e.g., 210), but only that a module (e.g., 210) can be connected to more than one place on a bus 230 through additional nodes. App. Br. 6-7; Reply Br. 2. Appellant therefore contends that Lambrecht fails to teach or suggest functional block cores coupled directly to a switch point and data transmitted from one functional block core to another functional block core passes through a switch point without traversing an inter-switch link. See id. ISSUE Under § 103, has the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1 by concluding that Lambrecht teaches or suggests (1) the first and second functional block cores coupled directly to the first switch point, and (2) data transmitted from the first functional block core to the second functional block core passes through the first switch point without traversing any recited inter-switch link? Appeal 2009-010435 Application 11/244,482 4 FINDINGS OF FACT (FF) Lambrecht 1. Lambrecht discloses a computer chip 100 with an on-chip data transfer network having: (1) devices or modules 210A-F; (2) communication nodes 220A-F and 225A-C; and (3) a bus 230. The modules 210A-F are linked by a nodes 220A-F. Nodes 220A-F are coupled to bus 230, which comprises individual buses or segments connecting between and among nodes 220A-F and 225A-C. Col. 4, ll. 48-67; Fig. 2A. 2. Lambrecht states that Figure 2A shows each module 210 coupled to the bus 230 by a communication node 220 but states “one skilled in the art might also choose to connect a particular module 210 to more than one place on bus 230 through one or more additional communication nodes 220 or 225.” Col. 7, ll. 39-43; Fig. 2A. 3. Lambrecht further states that the coupling of objects could be electrical, optical, or mechanical. Col. 7, ll. 43-45. ANALYSIS Based on the record before us, we find error in the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of independent claim 1 which calls for, in pertinent part, data transmitted from a first functional block core to a second functional block core passes through a first switch point without traversing a recited inter-switch link. Lambrecht discloses a module 210A or one of the Examiner’s functional block core (see Ans. 4) connected to another module 210B or another of the Examiner’s functional cores (see id.) through nodes 220A-B and bus 230. FF 1. Lambrecht describes and shows functional block cores not only connected through nodes but also a bus (e.g., 230) or an Appeal 2009-010435 Application 11/244,482 5 inter-switch link as recited. See id. Thus, as the Examiner finds (Ans. 4), Lambrecht’s elected arrangement does not disclose that transmitted data passes from a first functional block core to a second functional block core without traversing an inter-switch link (e.g., bus 230). The Examiner relies on another passage in Lambrecht to teach or suggest the recited “without traversing any of the plurality of inter-switch links” limitation. Lambrecht teaches connecting a module or a recited functional block (e.g., 210A) to a bus (e.g., 230) in more than one place using additional communication nodes (e.g., 220A, 225A). See FF 2. That is, a functional block core can be connected to the bus or inter-switch link in more than one place using additional communication nodes. See id. For example, a first functional block core (e.g., 210A) can be connected to the vertical bus segment 230 in Figure 2A located between nodes 220A and 220B in various locations using an additional node (e.g., 220X) and an electrical, optical, or mechanical coupling. See FF 2-3. Thus, Lambrecht teaches or suggests coupling the module or a functional block core directly to another location on the bus (e.g., an inter-switch link), but not to another module or functional block core. Based on the Examiner’s discussion, Lambrecht does not teach or suggest transmitting data from a first functional block core (e.g., 210A) to a second functional block core (e.g., 210B) through a switch point (e.g., 220X) without traversing the inter-switch links or a bus segment 230. 2 See id. 2 While not discussed by the Examiner, Lambrecht describes and shows module 210A directly coupled to the network manager 215 through node 220A and bus 216. See Lambrecht, col. 6, ll. 12-19; Fig. 2A. Notably, bus 216 not part of the inter-switch links or bus 230. See id. Appeal 2009-010435 Application 11/244,482 6 Also, contrary to the Examiner’s statement (Ans. 4), Lambrecht discloses the first and second functional block cores (e.g., 210A and B) coupled directly to different switch points (e.g., 220A and 220B respectively), and not both functional block cores directly coupled to the same or a first switch point as recited. If the first switch point is elected to be communication node 220A, then a first functional block core 210A is directly coupled to a first switch point 220A. On the other hand, if the first switch point is elected to be communication node 220B, a second functional block core 210B is directly coupled to the first switch point 220B and not switch point 220A. Thus, Lambrecht does not teach or suggest a direct coupling of both a first and second functional block cores to a first switch point. Moreover, absent impermissible hindsight, the Examiner has not articulated a reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion that Lambrecht teaches or suggests coupling the first and second functional block cores directly to a first switch point and that data transmitted from the first functional block core to the second functional block core passes through the first switch point without traversing an inter- switch link as recited. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 421 (2007). For the foregoing reasons, Appellant has persuaded us of error in the obviousness rejection of: (1) independent claim 1; (2) independent claims 12 and 25 which recite commensurate limitations; and (3) dependent claims 2- 11, 13-22, 24, and 26 for similar reasons. Appeal 2009-010435 Application 11/244,482 7 THE OBVIOUSNESS REJECTION OVER LAMBRECHT AND HARTMANN Claim 23 depends indirectly from independent claim 12 and thus includes all of limitations of claim 12. The Examiner has relied on Lambrecht’s disclosure and teachings to meet the limitations of claim 12 (see Ans. 4-5) and cites to Hartmann to teach the switch point coupled to an external circuit recited in claim 23 (see Ans. 9-10). Appellant has not presented a separate argument for claim 23, and the issue for this rejection is thus the same as that in connection with claim 12. For the reasons discussed above in connection with claims 1 and 12, we are also persuaded that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 23. Furthermore, Hartmann does not cure the deficiencies of Lambrecht. CONCLUSION The Examiner erred in rejecting (1) claims 1-22 and 24-26 under § 102 and (2) claim 23 under § 103. DECISION The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-26 is reversed. REVERSED ELD