Ex Parte Rozas et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 30, 2016

13007015 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 30, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/007,015 01114/2011
45590 7590 09/30/2016
Patent Prosecution Dept
MURABITO, HAO & BARNES LLP
TWO NORTH MARKET STREET
THIRD FLOOR
SAN JOSE, CA 95113
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Guillermo Rozas
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.
TRAN-P045C2 5780
EXAMINER
TRAN, DENISE
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2138
MAILDATE DELIVERY MODE
09/30/2016 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 PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte GUILLERMO ROZAS, ALEXANDER KLAIBER,
DAVID DUNN, PAUL SERRIS, and LACKY SHAH
Appeal2014-004667
Application 13/007,015
Technology Center 2100
Before CARLA M. KRIVAK, JON M. JURGOV AN, and
ADAM J. PYONIN, Administrative Patent Judges.
KRIVAK, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of
claims 1-15. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
Appeal2014-004667
Application 13/007,015
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants' invention is directed to "supporting speculative
modification in a data cache. (Spec. 1:11-12).
Independent claim 1, reproduced below, is exemplary of the subject
matter on appeal.
1. A speculative cache buffer comprising:
a plurality of cache lines, wherein at least one of the cache lines
is operable to receive an evicted cache line from a cache, wherein the
at least one of the cache lines is operable to return the evicted cache
line to the cache if the cache requests the evicted cache line, and
wherein if data is stored in the cache lines, the data has been received
from the cache; and
a plurality of state indicators operable to indicate a state of a
corresponding cache line of the cache lines.
REFERENCES and REJECTIONS
The Examiner rejected claims 1-15 under non-statutory obviousness-
type double patenting over Rozas (US 7,225,299 Bl; issued May 29, 2007)
and Kunkel (US 2003/0182539 Al; published Sep. 25, 2003).
The Examiner rejected claims 1-15 under non-statutory obviousness-
type double patenting over Rozas (US 7,873,793 Bl; issued Jan. 18, 2011)
and Kunkel.
The Examiner rejected claims 1-3, 8-10, and 14 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102( e) as anticipated by Kunkel.
The Examiner rejected claims 4, 5, and 11-13 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) based upon the teachings of Kunkel and Shibayama (US
2003/0014602 Al; published Jan. 16, 2003).
2
Appeal2014-004667
Application 13/007,015
ANALYSIS
Non-Statutory Obviousness-Type Double Patenting
Appellants have provided no arguments, nor any terminal disclaimers,
regarding the non-statutory obviousness-type double patenting rejections.
We, therefore, summarily sustain these rejections.
Rejection of claims 1-3, 8-10, and 14 under 35 USC§ 102(e)
We have reviewed the Examiner's rejections in light of Appellants'
arguments the Examiner has erred. We disagree with Appellants'
conclusions. We adopt as our own (1) the findings and reasons set forth by
the Examiner in the action from which this appeal is taken (Final Act. 5-10)
and (2) the reasons set forth by the Examiner in the Examiner's Answer in
response to Appellants' Appeal Brief (Ans. 6-24) and concur with the
conclusions reached by the Examiner. We highlight the following for
emphasis.
Appellants contend Kunkel does not disclose a speculative cache
buffer that comprises a plurality of cache lines and returning evicted cache
lines to the cache if requested, as claimed; rather Kunkel merely discloses a
wrong path cache (260) and a data cache (234), which do not read on a
speculative data cache buffer and cache, respectively (Br. 7). Appellants
then proceed to reiterate what Kunkel teaches, stating it is "in contrast" to
the recited claim language (Br. 8). Appellants continue in this manner for
the next 20 pages. We do not find Appellants' arguments persuasive as they
are merely conclusory. 1
1 See, e.g., In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1470 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (attorney
arguments or conclusory statements are insufficient to rebut a prima facie
case); see also In re Lovin, 652 F.3d 1349, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2011) ("[W]e
3
Appeal2014-004667
Application 13/007,015
The Examiner has made numerous reasonable evidentiary findings to
support the anticipation rejection over Kunkel (see, e.g., Final Act. 5-10).
We particularly agree with the Examiner's findings that paragraphs 21-23
(cumulative to Kunkel's paragraphs 49, 55, 56 cited for disclosing a
speculative cache buffer (the wrong cache buffer 260 which caches evicted
cache lines, etc.)) teach Appellants' claimed invention (see Ans. 13, 14).
Appellants have not filed a Reply Brief challenging the Examiner's
arguments, including those newly relying on paragraphs 21 and 23.
Thus, in light of the Examiner's reasonable findings, we sustain the
Examiner's anticipation rejection of independent claims 1 and 10, for which
substantially the same arguments were presented, and claims 2, 3, 8, 9, and
14, dependent therefrom and for which no additional arguments were
provided (Br. 14, 27).
Rejection of claims 4, 5, and 11-13 under 35 USC§ 103(a)
Appellants argue claims 4, 5 and 11-13 are allowable due to their
dependence on independent claims 1 and 10 (Br. 28-29). As Appellants
arguments do not persuade us of Examiner error in rejecting claims 1 and
10, claims 4, 5, and 11-13 fall therewith.
hold that the Board reasonably interpreted Rule 41.3 7 to require more
substantive arguments in an appeal brief than a mere recitation of the claim
elements and a naked assertion that the corresponding elements were not
found in the prior art."); cf In re Baxter Travenol Labs., 952 F.2d 388, 391
(Fed. Cir. 1991) ("It is not the function of this court to examine the claims in
greater detail than argued by an appellant, looking for [patentable]
distinctions over the prior art.").
4
Appeal2014-004667
Application 13/007,015
DECISION
The Examiner's decisions rejecting claims 1-15 under non-statutory
obviousness-type double patenting are affirmed.
The Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-3, 8-10, and 14 as
anticipated is affirmed.
The Examiner's decision rejecting claims 4, 5, and 11-13 as obvious
is 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
5