Ex Parte Shirlen et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 28, 2018

12900800 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 28, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/900,800 10/08/2010
115309 7590 10/02/2018
W &T/Qualcomm
106 Pinedale Springs Way
Cary, NC 27511
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Martyn Ryan Shirlen
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.
100742/1173-021 8584
EXAMINER
PATEL, NIMESH G
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2185
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
10/02/2018 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@wt-ip.com
us-docketing@qualcomm.com
ocpat_uspto@qualcomm.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte MARTYN RY AN SHIRLEN, RICHARD GERARD HOFMANN,
and MARK MICHAEL SCHAFFER
Appeal 2018-004130
Application 12/900,800 1
Technology Center 2100
Before JOSEPH L. DIXON, MARC S. HOFF, and JOHN D. HAMANN,
Administrative Patent Judges.
HOFF, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a Final Rejection of
claims 1-38. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm-in-part.
Appellants' invention is a method, apparatus, and computer-readable
medium for arbitrating stream transactions based on information related to
the stream transactions. An arbiter arbitrates bus transactions between a
plurality of devices connected to a bus. The arbiter is configured to use
temporal information related to the stream transactions to apply bus
1 The real party in interest is Qualcomm Incorporated. App. Br. 2.
Appeal 2018-004130
Application 12/900,800
arbitration policies. The bus arbitration policy can be adjusted for stream
transactions based on the stream transaction information, if necessary, for
the arbiter to attempt to meet a parameter(s) for completing the stream
transactions. See Abstract.
Claim 1 is reproduced below:
A bus arbiter, comprising:
a controller configured to:
receive a request corresponding to a stream transaction comprising a
superset of burst data transactions on a bus from a device coupled to the bus;
evaluate a bus arbitration policy based on temporal information
related to completing the stream transaction within a deadline; and
arbitrate the stream transaction among a plurality of stream
transactions on the bus based on the evaluated bus arbitration policy.
The Examiner relies upon the following prior art references:
Welin
Chou et al.
("Chou")
Shasha
Minami et al.
("Minami")
US 6,975,629 B2
US 2007 /0260793 Al
US 2010/0064069 Al
US 8,140,727 B2
Dec. 13, 2005
Nov. 8, 2007
Mar. 11, 2010
Mar. 20, 2012
Claims 1-10, 14--16, 18-26, and 29-38 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ I03(a) as being unpatentable over Chou and Shasha.
Claims 11, 12, 27, and 28 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as
being unpatentable over Chou, Shasha, and Minami.
Claim 13 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as being
unpatentable over Chou, Shasha, and W elin.
Claim 17 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as being
unpatentable over Chou, Shasha, and well-known prior art.
2
Appeal 2018-004130
Application 12/900,800
Throughout this decision, we make reference to the Appeal Brief
("App. Br.," filed September 19, 2017), the Reply Brief ("Reply Br.," filed
March 7, 2018), and the Examiner's Answer ("Ans.," mailed January 16,
2018) for their respective details.
ISSUES
1. Does the combination of Chou and Shasha teach or suggest
evaluating a bus arbitration policy based on temporal information related to
completing the stream transaction within a deadline?
2. Does the combination of Chou and Shasha teach or suggest
terminating the stream transaction if the deadline associated with completing
the stream transaction cannot be met?
ANALYSIS
CLAIMS 1-10, 14--16, 18-26, AND 29-38
Appellants argue that Shasha fails to teach "evaluat[ing] a bus
arbitration policy based on temporal information related to completing the
stream transaction within a deadline," as independent claims 1, 18, and 32
require. App. Br. 8. Appellants contend that Shasha states that its
"arbitration scheme is not responsive to the timing deadline." Shasha ,r 53.
According to Appellants, Shasha's arbitration scheme instead calls for
"select[ing] a DMA task in response to at least one available bandwidth
parameter (ABP)." Shasha ,r 54.
We are not persuaded by Appellants' argument. The Examiner finds
that Shasha teaches arbitrating a DMA task request out of a plurality of
DMA task requests "in response to timing deadlines associated with the
DMA tasks." Ans. 2 (emphasis omitted). The Examiner cites paragraphs 52
and 59 of Shasha in support. Id. We agree with the Examiner that Shasha
3
Appeal 2018-004130
Application 12/900,800
discloses an embodiment in which "the arbitration process includes two
stages. During the first stage the arbiter 410 sorts the DMA tasks to
predefined timing deadlines ranges. Then, it selects between the DMA tasks
that are associated with the shortest timing deadline range." Shasha ,r 59
( emphasis added). We therefore find that Shasha teaches selecting ( only)
DMA tasks associated with the shortest timing deadline range, and not
selecting those tasks having longer deadlines, which corresponds to the
claimed evaluation of a bus arbitration policy based on temporal information
related to completing the stream transaction within a deadline. We thus
agree with the Examiner's finding that Shasha teaches the claim limitation at
lSSUe.
With regard to Appellants' argument that paragraph 50 of Shasha
teaches events that occur before a DMA task request is sent to arbiter 410,
we agree that paragraph 50 is not relevant to the claim limitation at issue.
App. Br. 9. We nonetheless find supra that Shasha teaches bus arbitration
based on temporal information related to a deadline.
We are not persuaded that there is no rationale provided by the
Examiner for combining Chou and Shasha. App. Br. 9. The Examiner
states that "Chou discloses arbitrating stream bursts, which contain multiple
transactions[;] ... [and Shasha] discloses arbitrating DMA tasks, which
contain multiple transactions." Ans. 3. We agree with the Examiner that it
would have been obvious "to combine the teachings of Chou and [Shasha] to
evaluate a bus arbitration policy based on temporal information .... The
clear motivation to one of ordinary skill in the art here is that the
combination would be able to have the stream transaction meet its deadline."
4
Appeal 2018-004130
Application 12/900,800
Ans. 3. We find that the Examiner's stated rationale possesses a rational
underpinning to support the conclusion of obviousness.
Appellants' argument that the Examiner's proposed modification
would render Chou unsatisfactory for its intended purpose is not persuasive.
App. Br. 10. The claimed invention concerns the functions of a bus arbiter.
As pointed out by Appellants, paragraphs 50-51 of Shasha concern "whether
a DMA task can be serviced ... before sending the DMA task request to the
arbiter 410." App. Br. 9--10; Shasha ,r 50. Any teachings in Shasha directed
to events prior to the functions of the arbiter do not concern the functions of
the arbiter. Such teachings therefore are not germane to the claimed
invention, would not render Chou unsatisfactory for its intended purpose,
and not persuasive to show that the Examiner erred.
Because we are not persuaded that the Examiner erred in combining
Chou and Shasha, we sustain the Examiner's§ 103(a) rejection of claims 1-
10, 14--16, 18-26, and 29-38.
CLAIMS 11, 12, 27, AND 28
Appellants argue only that Minami fails to remedy the deficiencies of
Chou and Shasha with respect to claim 1. App. Br. 12. Because we do not
agree that such deficiencies exist, we sustain the Examiner's§ 103(a)
rejection of dependent claims 11, 12, 27, and 28, for the same reasons
expressed supra with respect to independent claims 1 and 19.
CLAIM 13
Claim 13, ultimately dependent from claim 1, requires a controller
"configured to terminate the stream transaction if the deadline associated
with completing the stream transaction cannot be met." The Examiner finds
5
Appeal 2018-004130
Application 12/900,800
that W elin discloses a method and apparatus for processing packets based on
deadline intervals, "wherein each packet must meet deadline or be
terminated." Final Act. 8, citing Welin col. 3:6-10.
We find error in the Examiner's rejection. We agree with Appellants
that there is a qualitative difference between terminating an individual
packet and terminating an entire stream transaction. App. Br. 13. Welin
teaches a system that handles a large number of packets and discards
(individual) packets whose deadline has passed. Welin col. 3:6-10.
We find that W elin does not teach or suggest terminating an entire
transaction due to an individual packet that does not meet its deadline. As a
result, we do not sustain the Examiner's§ 103(a) rejection of claim 13.
CLAIM 17
Appellants argue only that "'well-known prior art"' fails to remedy
the deficiencies of Chou and Shasha with respect to claim 1. App. Br. 13.
Because we do not agree that such deficiencies exist, we sustain the
Examiner's§ 103(a) rejection of dependent claim 17, for the same reasons
expressed supra with respect to independent claim 1.
CONCLUSION
1. The combination of Chou and Shasha teaches evaluating a bus
arbitration policy based on temporal information related to completing the
stream transaction within a deadline.
2. The combination of Chou and Shasha does not teach or suggest
terminating the stream transaction if the deadline associated with completing
the stream transaction cannot be met.
6
Appeal 2018-004130
Application 12/900,800
ORDER
The Examiner's decision to reject claims 1-12 and 14--38 is affirmed.
The Examiner's decision to reject claim 13 is reversed.
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-IN-PART
7