Ex Parte Westlund et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jul 11, 2017

14510946 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 11, 2017)

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.
14/510,946 10/09/2014 Par S. Westlund 2054-3 8634
23899 7590 07/13/2017
DOT TOT AST WFT T FR
EXAMINER
1832 Rosemary Drive
Gilroy, CA 95020
KNIGHT, PAUL M
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2139
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/13/2017 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):
patents @ dougweller. com
US PTO @ dockettrak. com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte PAR S. WESTLUND and LARS-OLOF B. SVENSSON
Appeal 2017-004298
Application 14/510,946
Technology Center 2100
Before JOHN A. JEFFERY, THU A. DANG, and ALEX S. YAP,
Administrative Patent Judges.
JEFFERY, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
decision to reject claims 1—20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants’ invention is a memory system for multiple clients where
every client is connected to (1) an operation bus to pass instructions; (2) a
key bus to pass search keys to the memory system; and (3) a priority bus to
pass results to the clients. The system uses plural hash content addressable
blocks, where each block comprises bus select logic, key memory, select
logic, and output logic. See generally Abstract; Spec. 9-27; Figs. 1—3.
Claims 1 and 10 are illustrative:
Appeal 2017-004298
Application 14/510,946
1. A memory system comprising:
an interface to a plurality of clients, the interface
comprising:
a plurality of operation buses used to pass instructions
from the clients to the memory system, wherein every client in
the plurality of clients is connected to one operation bus in the
plurality of operation buses,
a plurality of key buses used to pass search keys from the
clients to the memory system, wherein every client in the
plurality of clients is connected to one key bus in the plurality of
key buses, and
a plurality of priority buses used to pass results from the
memory system to the clients, wherein every client in the
plurality of clients is connected to one priority bus in the plurality
of priority buses; and
a plurality of hash content addressable blocks, each hash
content addressable block in the plurality of hash content
addressable blocks comprising:
bus select logic connected to at least one operation
bus in the plurality of operation buses and at least one key
bus in the plurality of key buses, the bus select logic being
configured to operate on data from a selected operation
bus and a selected key bus for a selected client from a
plurality of clients,
key memory that stores a plurality of output indices,
select logic that selects an output index from the
plurality of output indices based on key data received from
the selected key bus and based on operation data received
from the selected operation bus, and
output logic connected to the plurality of priority
buses, wherein the output logic outputs the output index to
a priority bus for the selected client.
10. A memory system hash content addressable block
comprising:
bus select logic connected to a plurality of client buses,
each client bus including a key bus section and an operation bus
2
Appeal 2017-004298
Application 14/510,946
section, the bus select logic being configured to operate on data
from a selected client bus from the plurality of client buses;
key memory that stores a plurality of output indices, each
output index in the plurality of output indices being stored with
an associated key;
select logic that based on a search key received from the
key bus section for the selected client bus generates a key
memory index and uses the key memory index to access from the
key memory an output index from the plurality of output indices;
output logic connected to a plurality of priority buses, each
of the priority buses being associated with a client bus from the
plurality of client buses;
wherein the output logic outputs the output index to a
priority bus associated with the selected client bus.
THE REJECTIONS
The Examiner rejected claims 10-15 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) as
indefinite. Final Act. 2.1
The Examiner rejected claims 1—6, 8—13, and 15—20 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Choubal (US 2006/0018330 Al; Jan. 26,
2006), Melchior (US 6,226,710 Bl; May 1, 2001), and Becca (US
2004/0001380 Al; Jan. 1, 2004). Final Act. 3-19.
The Examiner rejected claims 7 and 14 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Choubal, Melchior, Becca, and Patra (US 6,725,326 Bl;
Apr. 20, 2004). Final Act. 19—20.
1 Throughout this opinion, we refer to (1) the Final Rejection mailed June
17, 2016 (“Final Act.”); (2) the Appeal Brief filed September 27, 2016
(supplemented October 14, 2016) (“App. Br.”); (3) the Examiner’s Answer
mailed December 9, 2016 (“Ans.”); and (4) the Reply Brief filed January 17,
2017 (“Reply Br.”).
3
Appeal 2017-004298
Application 14/510,946
THE INDEFINITENESS REJECTION
The Examiner finds that independent claim 10 is indefinite because it
is unclear whether the recited “memory system hash content addressable
block” refers to a memory system or a hash content addressable block. Final
Act. 2.
Appellants argue that because the last noun, “block,” is preceded by
other nouns that are used adjectively to modify the last noun, the term is
clear under common grammatical rules. App. Br. 11—12; Reply Br. 1—2.
ISSUE
Has the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 10 under § 112(b) by
finding that the preamble can be interpreted as either a “memory system” or
a “hash content addressable block”?
ANALYSIS
As noted above, the key term in this dispute is the “memory system
hash content addressable block” in claim 10’s preamble. Although this term
is somewhat unusual, that does not mean it is indefinite particularly where,
as here, the term’s meaning can be reasonably ascertained from the claim
itself.
Despite the Examiner’s findings to the contrary, skilled artisans would
understand that a “memory system hash content addressable block” is a
block whose characteristics are indicated by its preceding modifying terms,
such that the block not only pertains to a “memory system,” but is also hash-
content addressable. Accord App. Br. 11 (noting that the term “memory
4
Appeal 2017-004298
Application 14/510,946
system hash content addressable block” is synonymous with “hash content
addressable block for a memory system”).
To construe the preamble as directed to a memory system—not a
block—as the Examiner proposes (Final Act. 2; Ans. 6) ignores the
preamble’s remaining terms, namely “hash content addressable block,” thus
rendering them meaningless. No reasonable interpretation of claim 10
justifies such a construction, for it is well settled that all recited terms must
be considered when construing claims. See In re Wilson, 424 F.2d 1382,
1385 (CCPA 1970); see also Bicon, Inc. v. Straumann Co., 441 F.3d 945,
950 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (“[CJlaims are interpreted with an eye toward giving
effect to all terms in the claim.”) (emphasis added).
This is not a case where claim 10’s preamble is amenable to two or
more plausible constructions (e.g., a memory system or a block) to render
the claim indefinite. See Ex parte Miyazaki, 89 USPQ2d 1207, 1211 (BPAI
2008) (precedential). Rather, this is a case where there is only one
reasonable interpretation—a block.
Therefore, we are persuaded that the Examiner erred in rejecting (1)
independent claim 10 as indefinite, and (2) dependent claims 11—14 for
similar reasons.
THE REJECTION OVER CHOUBAL, MELCHIOR, AND BECCA
The Examiner finds that Choubal, Melchior, and Becca teach or
suggest the memory system of claim 1, and, based on these collective
teachings, concludes that the claim would have been obvious. Final Act. 3—
8.
5
Appeal 2017-004298
Application 14/510,946
Appellants argue that the Examiner’s reliance on Choubal is
misplaced because (1) Choubal’s single external memory is not content
addressable, nor does it include key memory and output logic, and (2) the
single bidirectional bus renders bus select logic unnecessary. App. Br. 18—
19; Reply Br. 6—7. Appellants add that not only is there no plausible way to
combine the cited references to produce the claimed invention, the Examiner
failed to show a proper motivation to combine the references not only in the
rejection of claim 1, but also for claims 2 to 19. App. Br. 20—26; Reply Br.
7-10.
ISSUES
I. Under § 103, has the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1 by finding
that Choubal, Melchior, and Becca collectively would have taught or
suggested plural hash content addressable blocks, each block comprising the
recited bus select logic, key memory, select logic, and output logic?
II. Is the Examiner’s proposed combination of the cited references
supported by articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to
justify the Examiner’s obviousness conclusion?
ANALYSIS
Claims 1, 10, and 16
We begin by noting that the format of the Examiner’s rejection of
claim 1 is somewhat unusual because it does not follow the typical format of
(1) articulating findings from one primary prior art reference with respect to
the recited limitations; (2) identifying particular deficiencies in the primary
reference with respect to the recited limitations; (3) citing teachings from
6
Appeal 2017-004298
Application 14/510,946
one or more other prior art references to cure those acknowledged
deficiencies; and (4) explaining why ordinarily skilled artisans would have
combined the teachings of secondary references with those of the primary
reference to render the claim obvious. Accord App. Br. 20—21 (noting that
the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1 runs counter to the typical methodology
used to show obviousness).
Nevertheless, on this record, we see no harmful error in the
Examiner’s rejection despite its somewhat unorthodox approach. It is well
settled that to establish a factual basis to support the legal conclusion of
obviousness, the Examiner must make the factual determinations set forth in
Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17 (1966) (noting that 35 U.S.C.
§103 leads to three basic factual inquiries: (1) the scope and content of the
prior art; (2) the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue;
and (3) the level of ordinary skill in the art). Furthermore, the Examiner’s
obviousness rejection must be based on
“some articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to
support the legal conclusion of obviousness” .... [Hjowever, the
analysis need not seek out precise teachings directed to the
specific subject matter of the challenged claim, for a court can
take account of the inferences and creative steps that a person of
ordinary skill in the art would employ.
KSRInt’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007) (quoting In re Kahn,
441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006)).
Although the Examiner must determine the scope and content of the
prior art in obviousness rejections, the Examiner’s designated order of prior
art references is of no consequence. See In re Mouttet, 686 F.3d 1322, 1333
(Fed. Cir. 2012) (“[Wjhere the relevant factual inquiries underlying an
7
Appeal 2017-004298
Application 14/510,946
obviousness determination are otherwise clear, characterization by the
examiner of prior art as ‘primary’ and ‘secondary’ is merely a matter of
presentation with no legal significance.”). Rather, what matters is whether
the Examiner clearly articulated the relevant factual inquiries based on those
references in reaching an obviousness conclusion that is supported by some
articulated reasoning with rational underpinning. See id.', see also KSR, 550
U.S. at 418. Therefore, despite Appellants’ arguments regarding the
propriety of citing Choubal as a primary reference in the rejection (App. Br.
20), such arguments regarding the order of the references are not persuasive
given the cited references’ collective teachings.
Turning to the rejection when considered in light of the Examiner’s
further explanation in the Answer, the Examiner’s findings and conclusions
in the rejection—including those regarding the disputed hash content
addressable block limitation—are not based on any single reference alone,
but rather the collective teachings of the three cited references. See Final
Act. 3—8; Ans. 11—16.
Claim 1 recites, in pertinent part, plural hash content addressable
blocks, where each block comprises the recited bus select logic, key
memory, select logic, and output logic. On page 11 of the Answer, the
Examiner explains that Choubal’s Figure 6 shows multiple bus connections
to a memory controller 206 comprising caches that are said to contain
memory portions or “blocks.” Although the Examiner acknowledges that
these “blocks” are not hash content addressable, the Examiner nevertheless
cites Melchior for teaching that content addressable memory is known in the
art, and that the recited hash content addressable blocks would have been
obvious over the cited references’ collective teachings. See Ans. 12 (citing
8
Appeal 2017-004298
Application 14/510,946
Final Act. 5). Appellants’ arguments regarding Choubal’s individual
shortcomings in this regard (App. Br. 19; Reply Br. 6—7), do not show
nonobviousness because the rejection is based on the cited references’
collective teachings. See In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir.
1986).
Appellants’ arguments regarding Choubal’s alleged deficiencies
regarding the recited bus select logic (App. Br. 19) are likewise unavailing.
As the Examiner explains, Choubal’s memory controller 10 in Figure 1
selects a particular client according to a predefined scheme to access
external memory 14. Final Act. 6 (citing Choubal 17). Choubal’s Figures 5
and 6 provide similar functionality in this regard. See Choubal 37, 42-43.
Accord App. Br. 18—19.
Even assuming, without deciding, that Choubal is limited to a single
bidirectional bus 214 in Figure 6 thus precluding the need for bus select
logic as Appellants contend, the Examiner’s rejection is not based solely on
Choubal in this regard, but also on Melchior. See Final Act. 6; Ans. 12—13.
As shown in Melchior’s Figure 1, content addressable memory (CAM)
engine 100 is connected to command bus 120 and data bus 116 that the
Examiner maps to the recited operation and key buses, respectively. Final
Act. 3^4; Melchior, col. 8,11. 27^42.
Considering Choubal and Melchior collectively, then, the combination
predictably yields a hash content addressable block not only with bus select
logic connected to at least one operation and key bus, but also the recited
key memory and select logic as the Examiner indicates. Final Act. 6—7;
Ans. 13. Such an enhancement uses prior art elements predictably according
to their established functions—an obvious improvement. See KSR, 550 U.S.
9
Appeal 2017-004298
Application 14/510,946
at 417. See also Ans. 15—16 (explaining why ordinarily skilled artisans
would have combined Melchior with Choubal).
We reach a similar conclusion regarding the Examiner’s reliance on
Becca in connection with the recited output logic limitation. Final Act. 7—8;
Ans. 13, 15—16. Here again, the Examiner’s proposed combination uses
prior art elements predictably according to their established functions. See
KSR, 550 U.S. at 417. Moreover, Appellants’ arguments regarding
Choubal’s individual shortcomings in this regard (App. Br. 19) do not show
nonobviousness where, as here, the rejection is based on the cited
references’ collective teachings. See Merck, 800 F.2d at 1097.
Appellants’ contention that there is no plausible way to combine the
cited references (App. Br. 21—22) is unavailing. It is well settled that “a
determination of obviousness based on teachings from multiple references
does not require an actual, physical substitution of elements.” Mouttet, 686
F.3d at 1332 (citations omitted). Nor is the test for obviousness whether a
secondary reference’s features can be bodily incorporated into the structure
of the primary reference. In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981).
“Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would
have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art.” Id. And here, the
Examiner’s proposed combination reasonably satisfies that test, for the
proposed combination predictably uses prior art elements according to their
established functions to yield a predictable result. See KSR, 550 U.S. at 417.
Although the Choubal/Melchior/Becca system would arguably yield
one hash content addressable block with the four recited elements, namely
bus select logic, key memory, select logic, and output logic, we see no error
in the Examiner’s conclusion at least to the extent that providing plural hash
10
Appeal 2017-004298
Application 14/510,946
content addressable blocks in lieu of a single block would have been at least
an obvious variation. See Final Act. 4—5; Ans. 10-11 (finding no patentable
distinction in the claimed invention’s duplicated buses and blocks). And to
the extent that Appellants contend that the Examiner’s proposed
combination would somehow render the cited prior art unsuitable for its
intended purpose (see App. Br. 21—22), there is no persuasive evidence on
this record to substantiate such a theory.
On this record, then, the Examiner’s proposed combination of the
cited references is supported by articulated reasoning with some rational
underpinning to justify the Examiner’s obviousness conclusion. We reach
this conclusion not only for the independent claims, but also the dependent
claims as well. Although Appellants argue that the Examiner did not discuss
the motivation to combine the references for claims 2 to 19 (App. Br. 26),
the Examiner’s rejection of independent claims 10 and 16 and dependent
claims 2—6, 8, 9, 11—13, 15, and 17—202 is based on the same references
cited in connection with claim 1, and the Examiner’s articulated reason to
combine those references likewise applies to those claims despite the
references teaching or suggesting additional recited features. In short, these
additional features use prior art elements predictably according to their
established functions—an obvious improvement. See KSR, 550 U.S. at 417.
2 Although Appellants omit claim 20 from the combinability argument
regarding claims 2 to 19 (App. Br. 26), we nonetheless address claim 20
here as well. Moreover, because claims 7 and 14 were rejected separately
over Choubal, Melchior, Becca, and Patra (Final Act. 19-20), we find
sufficient reason to combine the cited references for the reasons noted above
and by the Examiner. See id.
11
Appeal 2017-004298
Application 14/510,946
Therefore, we are not persuaded that the Examiner erred in rejecting
claim 1, and claims 10 and 16 not argued separately with particularity.3
THE OTHER OBVIOUSNESS REJECTION
We also sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejections of claims 7 and
14. Final Act. 19—20. Because these rejections are not argued separately
with particularity,4 we are not persuaded of error in these rejections for the
reasons previously discussed.
CONCLUSION
The Examiner erred in rejecting claims 10—15 under § 112(b), but did
not err in rejecting claims 1—20 under § 103.
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1—20.
Because the rejection of each appealed claim is affirmed on at least
one of the grounds specified in the Office Action from which the appeal was
taken, the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1—20 is affirmed. See
37 C.F.R. § 41.50(a)(1).
3 Although Appellants nominally argue the Examiner’s rejection of claims
10 and 16 separately (see App. Br. 26—36), Appellants reiterate arguments
similar to those for claim 1 which we find to be unpersuasive for the reasons
previously discussed. Accordingly, we group these claims together.
4 Claims 7 and 14 are included in the range of claims listed in connection
with Appellants’ comb inability arguments for claims 2 to 19, and we find
sufficient reason to combine the cited references for the reasons noted above
and by the Examiner. See Final Act. 19—20.
12
Appeal 2017-004298
Application 14/510,946
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
13