Ex Parte Ziegler

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 26, 2016

12569824 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 26, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
12/569,824 0912912009 Michael L. Ziegler
56436 7590 03/01/2016
Hewlett Packard Enterprise
3404 E. Harmony Road
Mail Stop 79
Fort Collins, CO 80528
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.
82250819 9020
EXAMINER
MATTIS, JASON E
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2461
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/01/2016 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):
hpe.ip.mail@hpe.com
mkraft@hpe.com
chris.mania@hpe.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte MICHAEL L. ZIEGLER
Appeal2014-002257
Application 12/569,824
Technology Center 2400
Before JASON V. MORGAN, ERIC B. CHEN, and
JOSEPH P. LENTIVECH, Administrative Patent Judges.
CHEN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal2014-002257
Application 12/569,824
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the final rejection of
claims 1--4, 7-11, 13-18, and 20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b ). We reverse.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant's invention relates to a credit-based method for controlling
data communications in a computer system between a sender and a receiver,
coupled by an ordered communication link. (Abstract.)
Claim 1 is exemplary, with disputed limitations in italics:
1. A credit-based method for controlling data
communications in a computer system between a sender and a
receiver coupled by an ordered communication link, the method
compnsmg:
transmitting a request for a credit check from the sender to the
receiver via the ordered communication link, wherein an initial
number of credits is allocated to the sender in a credit counter, each
credit corresponding to a portion of memory space in the receiver
reserved to store a packet received from the sender;
setting a snapshot counter to a value of the credit counter;
updating the snapshot counter as returned credits are received;
determining a number of reported credits based on a credit
check response message received from the receiver, wherein the
returned credits are ordered relative to the credit check response
message; and
checking the number of credits in the computer system for
consistency based on a number of the snapshot counter and the
number of reported credits.
2
Appeal2014-002257
Application 12/569,824
Claims 1--4, 7-11, 13-18, and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Stuart (US 2006/0050639 Al; Mar. 9, 2006). 1
ANALYSIS
We are persuaded by Appellant's arguments (App. Br. 12-13; see also
Reply Br. 9) that Stuart would not have rendered obvious independent
claim 1, which includes the limitation "setting a snapshot counter to a value
of the credit counter."
The Examiner acknowledged that Stuart does not disclose the
limitation "setting a snapshot counter to a value of the credit counter" (Final
Act. 4; see also Ans. 4) but concluded that this limitation would have been
obvious because:
tracking the amount of credits owed to a sender node, as taught
by Stuart et al., and tracking the amount of credits belonging to
the sender node, as claimed, are both equal and interchangeable
ways to determine if there is consistency in credits between the
sender node and a receiver node based on the tracked amount
and an amount of credits reported by the receiver node
(Final Act. 5; see also Ans. 5) and "Stuart et al. does disclose counters that
perform a similar function to that of the claimed snapshot counter" (Ans. 6).
We do not agree.
Stuart "relates to [a] credit-based apparatus for controlling data
communications." (,-i 2.) Figure 1 of Stuart illustrates communication
link 10 using credit-based flow control and credit checking, including "credit
head end (CHE) 14 and a credit queue end (CQE) 16 coupled by a data
link 18 to a data queue 20 and a credit link 22." (,-i 26.) Stuart explains that
1 The Examiner has withdrawn the rejection of claims 5, 6, 12, and 19 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a). (Ans. 2.)
3
Appeal2014-002257
Application 12/569,824
"[a ]t the time the communication link is established or initialized, the CHE
is allocated a number of credits, n, which are stored in max credits 32" and
"returned credits flow through credit count 24 to an upstream flow
control 26." (iJ 28.) Table A of Stuart states that during a pipe-cleaning
operation to reset credits, "credits_ owed= max_ credits - credit_ count."
Although the Examiner cited to the "credit_ count" in Table A of
Stuart, the Examiner has not proffered a citation for the claimed "snapshot
counter," much less provided an articulated reasoning with some rationale
underpinning as to why one of ordinary skill in the art would store the
"credit count" in a snapshot counter.
Thus, we are persuaded by Appellant's arguments that:
even if one skilled in the art were somehow motivated to
rearrange the equation "credits_ owed = max_ credits
credit_ count" to track a value of the credit_ count, as proposed
by the Examiner, Stuart would still fail to teach or suggest,
"setting a snapshot counter to a value of the credit counter" as
recited in independent claim l
(App. Br. 12-13) and "the Examiner fails to provide reasons as to why it
would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to add a
snapshot counter into the system of Stuart or to substitute a counter in the
CHE with a snapshot counter" (Reply Br. 9).
Therefore, we do not agree with the Examiner that Stuart would have
rendered obvious independent claim 1, which includes the limitation "setting
a snapshot counter to a value of the credit counter."
Accordingly, we do not sustain the rejection of independent claim 1
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). Claims 2--4, 7, and 8 depend from independent
claim 1. Therefore, we do not sustain the rejection of claims 2--4, 7, and 8
4
Appeal2014-002257
Application 12/569,824
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) for the same reasons discussed with respect to
independent claim 1.
Independent claims 9 and 14 recite limitations similar to those
discussed with respect to independent claim 1. We do not sustain the
rejection of claims 9 and 14, as well as dependent claims 10, 11, 13, 15-18,
and 20, for the same reasons discussed with respect to claim 1.
DECISION
The Examiner's decision to reject claims 1--4, 7-11, 13-18, and 20
under 35 U.S.C. §103 is reversed.
REVERSED
5