Ex Parte Rijshouwer et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

May 27, 2016

12994061 (P.T.A.B. May. 27, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/994,061 11/22/2010
65913 7590 06/01/2016
Intellectual Property and Licensing
NXPB.V.
411 East Plumeria Drive, MS41
SAN JOSE, CA 95134
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Erik Rijshouwer
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.
81360983 US05 1391
EXAMINER
LI,ZHUOH
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2133
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/01/2016 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):
ip.department.us@nxp.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte ERIK RIJSHOUWER and
CORNELIS HERMANUS VAN BERKEL1
Appeal2014-006308
Application 12/994,061
Technology Center 2100
Before LINZY T. McCARTNEY, TERRENCE W. McMILLIN, and
KAMRAN JIVANI, Administrative Patent Judges.
McMILLIN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision2 on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the final
rejection of claims 1--4, 6-10, and 12.3 Final Act. 1. We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We affirm.
1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is NXP B.V. App. Br. 1.
2 Our decision refers to the Final Office Action mailed August 27, 2013
("Final Act."); Appellant's Appeal Brief filed February 25, 2014 ("App.
Br."); the Examiner's Answer mailed April 24, 2014 ("Ans."); Appellant's
Reply Brief filed May 5, 2014 ("Reply Br."); and the Specification filed
November 22, 2010 ("Spec.").
3 Claim 5 is objected to. Final Act. 1. Claim 11 is canceled. App. Br. 17.
Appeal2014-006308
Application 12/994,061
REJECTIONS ON APPEAL
Claims 1, 4, 6-10, and 12 stand provisionally rejected on the ground
of non-statutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable
over claims 1--4 and 6-10 of copending US Patent Application 12/933,847
("'847 Application"). Final Act. 3.
Claims 1--4, 6-10, and 12 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as
being unpatentable over Leung (US 6,415,353 Bl, issued July 2, 2002)
("Leung") and Gatherer et al. (EP 1 324 502 A2, published July 2, 2003)
("Gatherer"). Final Act. 7.
THE CLAIMED INVENTION
According to Appellants' Specification, "[t]the invention relates to a
data handling system, wherein[] the system is configured for receiving at an
input a plurality of commands, the system [also] comprises a plurality of
memory banks." Spec. 1 :3-5. Independent claim 1 is directed to a system;
independent claim 9 is directed to a method; and independent claim 12 is
directed to a storage medium. App. Br. 14, 16-17. Claim 1 recites:
A data handling system, wherein the data handling
system is configured for receiving, at an input, a plurality of
commands, the data handling system comprising:
a plurality of memory banks;
a distributor connected to the input and having a plurality
of distributor outputs, wherein each specific one of the plurality
of memory banks is connected to a specific one of the plurality
of distributor outputs, the distributor comprises a permutator
configured to designate, for each specific command a specific
distributor output so that the distributor distributes the specific
command to the designated distributor output, and the
permutator has a control input configured to receive
2
Appeal2014-006308
Application 12/994,061
reconfiguration data that control the designation of the specific
distributor output.
App. Br. 14.
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the rejections of claims 1--4, 6-10, and 12 in light
of the evidence of record and Appellants' arguments presented in the Appeal
Brief and the Reply Brief. We are not persuaded that Appellants identify
error. We agree with and adopt the Examiner's findings, reasoning, and
conclusions as set forth in the Non-Final Office Action (Non-Final Act. 2-
11) and the Examiner's Answer (Ans. 2-7). We highlight the following for
emphasis.
Double Patenting Rejection
Claims 1, 4, 6-10, and 12 are provisionally rejected on the ground of
non-statutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over
claims 1--4 and 6-10 of the '84 7 Application. Final Act. 3. Appellants
argue they added additional subject matter to the claims in the '847
Application and the rejection is based on claim language that is no longer
pending. App. Br. 5-6; Reply Br. 1-3. However, Appellants fail to explain
how adding subject matter to the claims in the '847 Application renders the
rejection improper or why the rejected claims are patentable over the claims
of the '847 Application. If all the original subject matter on which the
rejection is based is still in the claims of the '847 Application, those claims
still contain the subject matter on which the rejection was based. We are
therefore not persuaded by the argument and sustain this rejection.
3
Appeal2014-006308
Application 12/994,061
Obviousness Rejections
Claims l, 9, and 12
Appellants argue the cited combination of references fails to teach or
suggest, "a permutator configured to designate, for each specific
command, a specific distributor output ... and the permutator has a
control input configured to receive reconfiguration data that control the
designation of the specific distributor output," as recited in independent
claim 1. App. Br. 9; Reply Br. 3. Independent claims 9 and 12 contain
similar limitations and Appellants argue all the independent claims as a
single group. App. Br. 9; Reply Br. 3.
Appellants argue, "[t]he Examiner fails to identify the 'specific
distributor output' and "control input,"' and the rejection is improper
"because of the failure of either reference to disclose reconfiguration data as
claimed." App. Br. 9; Reply Br. 3--4. These arguments are not well-taken in
view of the detailed and well-supported rejection including findings and
citing teachings related to the disputed limitations set forth by the Examiner.
The Final Office Action states:
Regarding claim 1, Leung discloses a data handling
system ( 1000, figure 1 ), wherein: the system is configured for
receiving at an input a plurality of commands (col. 7 lines 30-
38), the system comprises: a plurality of memory banks (0-63,
figure 1 ); a distributor (183) connected to the input and having
a plurality of distributor outputs, each specific one of the
plurality of memory banks is connected to a specific one of the
plurality of distributor outputs (figure 1 ). Leung also teaches
the distributor comprising a reconfiguration module has a
control input to reconfigure under the control of
reconfiguration data received the control input (col. 10 lines
25-44). Leung differs from the claimed invention in not
4
Appeal2014-006308
Application 12/994,061
specifically disclosing the distributor comprises a permutator
for designating for each specific command a specific distributor
output, the distributor distributes the specific command to be
the specific distributor output. However, Gartherer teaches a
MAP decoder comprises a permutation lookup arranged to
designate for each specific command a specific distributor
output corresponding to a processing of the specific index, the
MAP decoder distributes the specific command to the specific
designated distributor output, wherein the permutation
lookup is further arranged to compute a specific address by
processing the specific index in accordance with an address
function; each memory bank is arranged to store or retrieve a
specific data object in accordance with the specific address, and
wherein the processing of the specific index comprises adding
the specific address to substantially the specific index (figure la
and [0017]-[0018]) in order to reduction number of circuits as
compared to parallel MAP decoder. Therefore, it would have
been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the
invention was made to modify Leung in having the distributor
comprises a permutator for designating for each specific
command a specific distributor output, the distributor
distributes the specific command to the specific designated
distributor output, as per teaching of Gartherer, in order to
reduction number of circuits.
Final Act. 7-8 (emphasis added); accord, Ans. 5---6. Appellants fail to
present specific arguments as to how the Examiner erred in making these
findings or how the cited references fail to teach or suggest the disputed
limitations. We are not persuaded of error in the rejection of independent
claims 1, 9, and 12 and sustain the obviousness rejection of these claims.
Claim 8
Claim 8 recites, "wherein the distributor further comprises a stalling
module" and "at least one distinct access module." App. Br. 16.
5
Appeal2014-006308
Application 12/994,061
Appellants argue, "[t]he Office Action fails to address this subject matter."
App. Br. 11; Reply Br. 4. 4 This contention is not correct. The Final Office
Action states:
Regarding claim 8, Leung teaches the distributor (102)
further comprises a stalling module and wherein at least one
distinct access module is arranged to signal the stalling
module if the distinct access module is substantially full, and
wherein the stalling module (figure 8) is arranged to
temporarily prevent the distributor from distributing (col. 24
line 18 through col. 26 line 7).
Final Act. 9-10. Here again, Appellants fail to present specific arguments as
to how the Examiner erred in making these findings or why the cited
reference fails to teach or suggest the disputed limitations. We are not
persuaded of error in the rejection of claim 8 and sustain its rejection.
Claims 2--4, 6, 7, and 10
Appellants argue that dependent claims 2--4, 6, 7, and 10 are
patentable for the reasons presented in support of the independent claims.
App. Br. 12. For the reasons given above with regard to independent claims
1, 9, and 12, we sustain the rejection of claims 2--4, 6, 7, and 10.
4 Appellants argue in the Reply Brief, "that the Office Action neglects to
pre[ s Jent any articulated reasoning regarding why Leung would be modified
to contain either a stalling or direct access module." Reply Br. 4. This
argument was not made in the Appeal Brief and, thus, is untimely. 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.41 (b )(2)("Any argument raised in the reply brief which was not raised
in the appeal brief ... will not be considered by the Board for purposes of the
present appeal, unless good cause is shown."). Appellants fail to show (or
even argue) good cause exists for not raising this argument in the Appeal
Brief.
6
Appeal2014-006308
Application 12/994,061
DECISION
The rejections of claims 1--4, 6-10, and 12 are affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED
7