Thierry Quere et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Oct 21, 2019

13698307 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Oct. 21, 2019)

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.
13/698,307 02/14/2013 Thierry Quere PF100036 6210
24498 7590 10/21/2019
Vincent E. Duffy
THOMSON Licensing
19868 Collins Road
CANYON COUNTRY, CA 91351
EXAMINER
CHERY, MARDOCHEE
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2133
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
10/21/2019 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):
Patricia.Verlangieri@InterDigital.com
mike.pugel@eurekovation.com
vincent.duffy@technicolor.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte THIERRY QUERE, RENAUD RIGAL, and
FLORENT FRESNAYE
____________________

Appeal 2018-007881
Application 13/698,307
Technology Center 2100
____________________

Before JOSEPH L. DIXON, JAMES W. DEJMEK, and
MATTHEW J. McNEILL, Administrative Patent Judges.

DIXON, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2018-007881
Application 13/698,307

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a Final Rejection of
claims 1–14.2 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.

The claims are directed to a method and apparatus for optimization of
cache memory management using increasing levels of exclusion from
adding to cache of data, the exclusion levels being increasingly restrictive
with regard to adding data to cache as the cache memory fill level increases.
(Abstract.) Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject
matter:
1. A method of cache memory management implemented in
a receiver device, said method comprising:

stagewise excluding adding data to said cache memory as
cache memory fill level increases, said stagewise excluding
comprising determining, for each successive stage of cache
memory fill level, exclusion of said data from being added to
said cache memory according to rules of exclusion of adding
data to said cache memory that are increasingly restrictive.

REFERENCE
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:

1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in
37 C.F.R. § 1.42 (2016). Appellant identifies the real party in interest as
Thomson Licensing S.A. (Appeal Br. 2.)

2 The Examiner has withdrawn the obviousness rejection of claims 3–8 and
11–14 and indicated that the claims would be allowable if rewritten in
independent form. (Ans. 3, 5).
Appeal 2018-007881
Application 13/698,307

3
Wintergerst US 2006/0064549 A1 Mar. 23, 2006

REJECTION
The Examiner made the following rejection:
Claims 1, 2, 9, and 10 stand rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) as being anticipated by Wintergerst.

ANALYSIS
With respect to independent claims 1 and 9, Appellant argues that the
claimed invention requires “stagewise excluding adding data to said cache
memory as cache memory fill level increases indicates that at each stage of
cache memory fill level, adding data can be excluded.” (Appeal Br. 7.)
Appellant also contends that the claimed invention further requires “at each
stage, adding data can be excluded but a stage with higher memory fill level,
the rules of exclusion of adding data becomes more restrictive.” (Appeal
Br. 7.)
The Examiner maintains in the statement of the anticipation rejection
that paragraphs 19, 44, 62, and Figure 9 of Wintergerst disclose the claimed
invention. (Final Act. 2–3; Ans. 4–5.) But, in the Response to Arguments
section, the Examiner additionally relies upon paragraphs 115 and 120–123
of the Wintergerst reference to disclose the claimed invention. (Ans. 5.)
The Examiner maintains the Wintergerst reference discloses in its last step to
decline storage if the final threshold is exceeded. (See Wintergerst Fig. 8;
Ans. 7–9.) Additionally, the Examiner maintains that the Wintergerst
reference discloses declining to store data in the cache memory in step 950.
(See generally Ans. 7, 8, and 9 (“the second [or third] threshold corresponds
Appeal 2018-007881
Application 13/698,307

4
to a process of declining requests to store (i.e., excluding from being added)
entities in the cache.”).)
We find the Examiner’s anticipation rejection to be speculative, and
we agree with Appellant that the Wintergerst reference generally stores the
data in the cache memory and performs an eviction to free up memory
space. The Wintergerst reference further discloses that if the memory goes
beyond a specific/final threshold then the memory declines the storage in the
cache memory. (Appeal Br. 6–10.)
Although the Wintergerst reference discloses the final step of
declining storage, which is the closest portion to the claimed invention, we
find that there is only one rule for declining storage and the other rules
pertain to storing and evicting data from the cache memory. However, the
claimed invention additionally requires “exclusion of said data from being
added to said cache memory according to rules of exclusion of adding data
to said cache memory that are increasingly restrictive.” (Claim 1)
(emphases added.) Therefore, the claimed invention requires plural rules
and the rules are increasingly restrictive. As a result, the Examiner’s finding
that the Wintergerst reference anticipates independent claim 1 and
independent claim 9 is not supported by the express disclosures of the
Wintergerst reference, and we cannot sustain the rejection based upon
anticipation. Because dependent claims 2 and 10 contain the same
deficiency in the rejection, we reverse the anticipation rejection of dependent
claims 2 and 10.
Appeal 2018-007881
Application 13/698,307

5

CONCLUSION
The Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1, 2, 9, and 10 based upon
anticipation under 35 U.S.C. § 102.

DECISION
For the above reasons, we reverse the Examiner’s anticipation
rejection of claims 1, 2, 9, and 10.

Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Basis Affirmed Reversed
1, 2, 9, 10 102 Wintergerst 1, 2, 9, 10
Overall
outcome
1, 2, 9, 10

REVERSED