11151318 (B.P.A.I. Sep. 16, 2009)

Ex Parte White et al

Board of Patent Appeals and InterferencesSep 16, 2009

11151318 (B.P.A.I. Sep. 16, 2009)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS AND INTERFERENCES ____________ Ex parte SEAN T. WHITE and JONATHAN MERCER OWEN ____________ Appeal 2008-005108 Application 11/151,318 Technology Center 2100 ____________ Decided: September 17, 2009 ____________ Before HOWARD B. BLANKENSHIP, LANCE LEONARD BARRY, and ST. JOHN COURTENAY, III, Administrative Patent Judges. BARRY, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE The Patent Examiner rejected claims 1-3, 5-8, and 10-13. The Appellants appeal therefrom under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 134(a). We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 6(b). Appeal 2008-005108 Application 11/151,318 2 INVENTION The invention at issue on appeal controls memory reading behavior in Peripheral Component Interconnect (PCI ) devices includes connecting a master PCI device to a PCI bus. (Abstract, Spec. 11.) ILLUSTRATIVE CLAIM 5. A method of controlling memory read behavior in a PCI device, the method including: connecting a master PCI device to a PCI bus, the master PCI device being constructed and arranged to issue a memory read command as one of a Memory Read Line, or Memory Read Multiple command to target PCI device connected to the PCI bus, establishing a data transfer transaction between the master PCI device and the target PCI device, if a disconnect of the transaction occurs, ignoring changes in the memory read command and reissuing said command by the master PCI device upon reconnect regardless of how much more data the master PCI device wants to receive, which enables the target PCI device to recognize the command as a continuation of the original transaction. PRIOR ART Bronson et al. ("Bronson") US 6,973,528 B2 Dec. 6, 2005 Brown US 6,728,808 B1 Apr. 27, 2004 REJECTIONS Claims 1, 2, 5, 7, 8, and 10-12 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§102(e) as anticipated by Bronson. Appeal 2008-005108 Application 11/151,318 3 Claims 3, 6, and 13 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§103(a) as being obvious over Bronson and Brown. ISSUE The Examiner makes the following findings regarding Bronson. The transaction of said READ request is completed, and a new READ request is generated by said Requesting Device. However, the newly generated READ request is continuously retrieving the prefetched data from Read Buffer, i.e., ignoring changes in the memory read command; See col. 4, line 56 through col. 5, line 7) . . . . (Ans. 4.) The Appellants argue that "[t]here is simply no teaching in Bronson of changes to other read commands . . . ." (App. Br. 7.) Therefore, the issue before us is whether the Appellants have shown error in the Examiner's finding that Bronson ignores changes in a memory read command. LAW "[A]nticipation of a claim under Â§ 102 can be found only if the prior art reference discloses every element of the claim . . . ." In re King, 801 F.2d 1324, 1326 (Fed. Cir. 1986) (citing Lindemann Maschinenfabrik GMBH v. American Hoist & Derrick Co., 730 F.2d 1452, 1457 (Fed. Cir. 1984)). FINDINGS OF FACT (FFS) 1. In Bronson, an initial "READ request 250 from requesting device 204 is transmitted to one of . . . buses 206, 210 (first bus 206 as Appeal 2008-005108 Application 11/151,318 4 shown) and to bridge 200." (Col. 4, ll. 14-16.) "[B]ridge 200 issues a READ request 254 on second bus 210 requesting data from target device 208." (Id. ll. 19-20.) 2. "Once target device 208 has retrieved the data, the data is transferred to bridge 200 by transfer engine 214 from target device 208 and is stored within read buffer 212." (Id. ll. 29-31.) "[B]ridge 200 . . . start[s] returning data on first bus 206 and then run[s] out of data to transfer. In this case, bridge 200 signals a 'disconnect' to requesting device 204." (Id. ll. 43-46.) 3. "[T]ransfer engine 214 will prefetch additional data following a disconnection with requesting device 204. In addition, the additional data is cached in read buffer 212." (Id. ll. 58-61.) "Transfer engine 214 can then transfer the additional data to first bus 206 if requesting device 204 requests additional data, i.e., issues a further READ request 258, without having to fetch it from target device 208." (Col. 4, l. 65 â€“ col. 5, l. 1.) 4. Bronson's "transfer engine 214 will prefetch additional data following a disconnection with requesting device 204," (col. 4, ll. 58-60); "the additional data is cached in read buffer 212" (id. ll. 60-61). The "[t]ransfer engine 214 can then transfer the additional data to first bus 206 if requesting device 204 requests additional data, i.e., issues a further READ request 258, without having to fetch it from target device 208." (Col. 4, l. 65 - col. 5, l. 1.) Appeal 2008-005108 Application 11/151,318 5 ANALYSIS We agree with the Appellants that "[i]n Bronson, there are no changes in the memory read command since a READ command is issued: if there is a disconnect, another READ command is issued." (Appeal Br. 7.) More specifically, the Examiner does not show that the further READ request 258 (FF 4) is a different type of command as the initial READ request 250 (FF 1). The lack of such a showing negates anticipation. Nor does the Examiner allege, let alone show, that the addition of Brown cures the aforementioned deficiency of Bronson. CONCLUSION Based on the aforementioned facts and analysis, we conclude that the Appellants have shown error in the Examiner's finding that Bronson ignores changes in a memory read command. DECISION We reverse the rejections of claims 1-3, 5-8, and 10-13. REVERSED erc MANELLI DENISON & SELTER 2000 M STREET NW SUITE 700 WASHINGTON DC 20036-3307