Ex Parte Safranek et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

May 20, 2004

09507261 (B.P.A.I. May. 20, 2004)

1
The opinion in support of the decision being entered today was not
written for publication and is not binding precedent of the Board.
Paper No. 11
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________
Ex parte ROBERT J. SAFRANEK and ERIC N. LAIS
____________
Appeal No. 2003-0640
Application No. 09/507,261
____________
ON BRIEF
____________
Before SMITH, RUGGIERO, and MACDONALD, Administrative Patent
Judges.
MACDONALD, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal from the final rejection of
claims 1, 2, 4-15, 17 and 18. Claims 3 and 16 are objected to as
depending upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if
rewritten in independent form including all the limitations of
the base claim and any intervening claims. Claims 19 and 20 are
indicated as allowable.
Appeal No. 2003-0640
Application No. 09/507,261
2
Invention
The disclosed invention relates to multimode computer
systems with multiple processors on the nodes (Figures 1 and 2).
More particularly, the invention relates to ensuring that a
remote node obtains control of data by having a state machine
monitor whether an invalidate message for data is received at the
node after the node issues a request for a shared copy of the
data. If an invalidate message is received, then in response the
node issues a request for an exclusive copy of the data (figure
5).
Claim 18 is representative of the claimed invention and is
reproduced as follows:
18. A multimode computer system with multiple processors on the
nodes that ensures a remote node obtains control of data,
comprising a state machine that monitors whether an invalidate
message for data is received after issuing a request for a shared
copy of the data and in response to the invalidate message issues
a request for an exclusive copy of the data.
Reference
The reference relied on by the Examiner is as follows:
Lovett 5,802,578 Sep. 1, 1998
Appeal No. 2003-0640
Application No. 09/507,261
3
Rejections At Issue
Claims 1, 2, 4-15, 17 and 18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102 as being anticipated by Lovett.
Throughout our opinion, we make references to the
Appellants' brief, and to the Examiner's Answer for the
respective details thereof.
OPINION
With full consideration being given to the subject matter on
appeal, Examiner's rejections and the arguments of Appellants and
Examiner, for the reasons stated infra, we reverse the Examiner's
rejection of claims 1, 2, 4-15, 17 and 18 under 35 U.S.C. § 102.
Appellants have indicated that for purposes of this appeal
the claims remaining on appeal stand or fall together. We will,
thereby, consider Appellants' claims 1, 2, 4-15, 17 and 18, as
standing or falling together and we will treat claim 18 as a
representative claim of that group.
I. Whether the Rejection of Claims 1, 2, 4-15, 17 and 18 Under
35 U.S.C. § 102 is proper?
It is our view, after consideration of the record before us,
that the disclosure of Lovett does not fully meet the invention
as recited in claims 1, 2, 4-15, 17 and 18. Accordingly, we
reverse.
Appeal No. 2003-0640
Application No. 09/507,261
4
It is axiomatic that anticipation of a claim under § 102 can
be found only if the prior art reference discloses every element
of the claim. See In re King, 801 F.2d 1324, 1326, 231 USPQ 136,
138 (Fed. Cir. 1986) and Lindemann Maschinenfabrik GMBH v.
American Hoist & Derrick Co., 730 F.2d 1452, 1458, 221 USPQ 481,
485 (Fed. Cir. 1984).
With respect to independent claim 18, the Examiner has
indicated how he finds anticipation of the claims on appeal
[answer, page 3-4]. The Examiner deems the "in response to the
invalidate message issues a request for an exclusive copy of the
data" limitation of claim 18 to be met by "updating a cache line
which is in a state indicating it is the 'only cached copy'
either consistent with memory or inconsistent with memory"
[answer, page 4, lines 7-9]. Appellants argue, "nothing in
Lovett teaches responding to a received invalidate request with a
request for an exclusive copy" (brief, page 5, lines 22-23).
Appellants further argue, "Lovett is not concerned with, and does
not teach, how nodes should respond to received invalidate
requests" (brief, page 6, lines 10-11). Finally, Appellants
argue, "Nothing in Lovett inherently requires that the response
from one of the remote nodes be a request for an exclusive copy,
as required by the independent claims" (brief, page 6, lines 21-
23). Upon reviewing the Lovett reference, we find that Lovett is
Appeal No. 2003-0640
Application No. 09/507,261
5
silent as to how its nodes make an active response, if any, to
receipt of an invalidate message. Therefore, Appellants'
arguments are persuasive and we will not sustain the Examiner's
rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 102.
Other Issues
At the earliest appropriate point, the Examiner should
address whether apparatus claim 18 is a proper 35 U.S.C. § 112,
sixth paragraph claim. If claim 18 does not enjoy protection
under 35 U.S.C. § 112, sixth paragraph as being "for a
combination," then the Examiner should address the issue of
whether a "single means" rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first
paragraph is appropriate. See In re Hyatt, 708 F.2d 712, 714-
715, 218 USPQ 195, 197 (Fed. Cir. 1983), and see the Manual of
Patent Examining Procedure § 2164.08(a).
Conclusion
In summary, we have not sustained any of the Examiner's
rejections of the claims on appeal. Therefore, the decision of
the Examiner rejecting claims 1, 2, 4-15, 17 and 18 is reversed.
Appeal No. 2003-0640
Application No. 09/507,261
6
No time period for taking any subsequent action in
connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 CFR
§ 1.136(a).
REVERSED
JERRY SMITH )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
JOSEPH F. RUGGIERO ) APPEALS
Administrative Patent Judge ) AND
) INTERFERENCES
)
)
)
ALLEN R. MACDONALD )
Administrative Patent Judge )
ARM/lbg
Appeal No. 2003-0640
Application No. 09/507,261
7
KLARQUIST SPARKMAN CAMPBELL
LEIGH & WHINSTON LLP
ONE WORLD TRADE CENTER SUITE 1600
121 S W SALOMON STREET
PORTLAND, OR 97204-2988