ARM LIMITEDDownload PDFPatent Trials and Appeals BoardMar 9, 20212019004888 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 9, 2021) Copy Citation 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. 15/066,453 03/10/2016 Michael John WILLIAMS JRL-550-1957 2404 73459 7590 03/09/2021 NIXON & VANDERHYE, P.C. 901 NORTH GLEBE ROAD, 11TH FLOOR ARLINGTON, VA 22203 EXAMINER ASHLEY, BRUCE S ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2494 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 03/09/2021 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): PTOMAIL@nixonvan.com pair_nixon@firsttofile.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte MICHAEL JOHN WILLIAMS and SIMON JOHN CRASKE Appeal 2019-004888 Application 15/066,453 Technology Center 2400 Before JOSEPH L. DIXON, BEVERLY A. FRANKLIN, and MAHSHID D. SAADAT, Administrative Patent Judges. DIXON, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–21. See Final Act. 1. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We REVERSE. 1 We use the term “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42 (2017). Appellant identifies the real party in interest as ARM Limited. Appeal Br. 3. Appeal 2019-004888 Application 15/066,453 2 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER The claims are directed to an event monitoring in a multi-threaded data processing apparatus. Title. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 1. Apparatus for multi-threaded data processing comprising: data processing circuitry to perform data processing operations for each thread of multiple threads; event handling circuitry to receive event information from the data processing circuitry indicative of an event which has occurred during the data processing operations; and visibility configuration storage to hold a set of visibility configuration values, each visibility configuration value associated with a thread of the multiple threads, wherein the event handling circuitry is responsive on receipt of the event information to adapt its use of the event information to restrict visibility of the event information for software of threads other than the thread which generated the event information when a visibility configuration value for the thread which generated the event information has a predetermined value. REFERENCES The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is: Name Reference Date Wolczko. US 2005/0183065 A1 Aug. 18, 2005 Henry US 2009/0290712 A1 Nov. 26, 2009 Adar US 2012/0089979 A1 Apr. 12, 2012 REJECTIONS Claims 1–9, 12, and 17–21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Wolczko. Final Act. 6. Appeal 2019-004888 Application 15/066,453 3 Claims 10 and 11 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Wolczko and Adar. Final Act. 17. Claims 13–15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Wolczko and Henry. Final Act. 20. Claim 16 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Wolczko, Henry, and Adar. Final Act. 23. OPINION 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(2) “[T]he examiner bears the initial burden, on review of the prior art or on any other ground, of presenting a prima facie case of unpatentability.” In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445 (Fed. Cir. 1992). “[A]nticipation is a question of fact.” In re Hyatt, 211 F.3d 1367, 1371–72 (Fed. Cir. 2000), (citing Bischoff v. Wethered, 76 U.S. (9 Wall.) 812, 814–15 (1869); In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477 (Fed. Cir. 1997)). [U]nless a reference discloses within the four corners of the document not only all of the limitations claimed but also all of the limitations arranged or combined in the same way as recited in the claim, it cannot be said to prove prior invention of the thing claimed and, thus, cannot anticipate under 35 U.S.C. § 102. Net MoneyIn, Inc. v. VeriSign, Inc., 545 F.3d 1359, 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2008). Thus, it is not enough that the prior art reference discloses part of the claimed invention, which an ordinary artisan might supplement to make the whole, or that it includes multiple, distinct teachings that the artisan might somehow combine to achieve the claimed invention. Net MoneyIn, Inc., 545 F.3d at 1371. Appeal 2019-004888 Application 15/066,453 4 Appellant argues that the Wolczko reference does not disclose the claimed: visibility configuration storage to hold a set of visibility configuration values, each visibility configuration value associated with a thread of the multiple threads, wherein the event handling circuitry is responsive on receipt of the event information to adapt its use of the event information to restrict visibility of the event information for software of threads other than the thread which generated the event information when a visibility configuration value for the thread which generated the event information has a predetermined value. Appeal Br. 7–8; Reply Br. 2–4. Appellant argues that the Examiner has presented multiple different mappings of the disclosure of the Wolczko reference to correspond to the visibility configuration storage and the visibility configuration value. Appeal Br. 8; Reply Br. 5. Appellant contends that Wolczko does not restrict the visibility of information indicating the occurrence of an event that causes the counters to be incremented. Reply Br. 6. The Examiner relies upon the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim limitations to mean that thread A owns the data and other threads, such as thread B, cannot see the event information of thread A and the Examiner concludes that in regards to the analogy, it is unclear how the Examiner’s interpretation would also not restrict visibility. Ans. 7. The Examiner states that the Examiner “believes the prior art combination adequately teaches the limitations and the [anticipation] rejection should be sustained.” Ans. 8 (emphasis added). Appellant further contends that paragraph 40 of the Wolczko reference is not saying that the owner is able to choose which threads can Appeal 2019-004888 Application 15/066,453 5 access the counter in user mode, but this text is saying that the owner is the thread that can access the counter in user mode. Reply Br. 3–4. Appellant further contends that the claim language specifically recites that such visibility is restricted in a particular condition and the condition is ignored by the Examiner’s broadest reasonable interpretation. Reply Br. 6. Appellant further argues that the Wolczko reference lacks the claimed combination of the visibility configuration storage and the event handling circuitry elements. Appeal Br. 9–10; Reply Br. 6. We agree with Appellant and find that the limited disclosure and paragraphs 24 and 40 of the Wolczko reference do not disclose the specific claim limitations such that visibility is restricted in a particular condition which the Examiner’s broadest reasonable interpretation does not address. Reply Br. 6. A preponderance of the evidence must show nonpatentability before the PTO may reject the claims of a patent application. In re Caveney, 761 F.2d 671, 674 (Fed. Cir. 1985). Here, the Examiner has provided limited citations to the Wolczko reference in the statement of the rejection and Response to Argument sections. We cannot agree with the Examiner that the Wolczko reference discloses within the four corners of the document not only all of the limitations claimed but also all of the limitations arranged or combined in the same way as recited in the claim language. As a result, we are left to speculate as to the propriety of the Examiner’s finding of anticipation based upon these speculative findings and we cannot sustain the Examiner’s anticipation rejection of independent claims 1, 19, 20, and 21 and the respective dependent claims 2–9, 12, 17, and 18. Appeal 2019-004888 Application 15/066,453 6 35 U.S.C. § 103 With respect to the obviousness rejection of dependent claims 10, 11, and 13–16, the Examiner additionally relies upon the Adar and Henry references, but the Examiner does not identify how the cited portions in those references remedy the noted deficiency above. As a result, we cannot sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejections. CONCLUSION The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1–21 is REVERSED. DECISION SUMMARY Claim(s) Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 1–9, 12, 17– 21 102(a)(2) Wolczko 1–9, 12, 17– 21 10, 11 103 Wolczko, Adar 10, 11 13–15 103 Wolczko, Henry 13–15 16 103 Wolczko, Henry, Adar 16 Overall Outcome 1–21 REVERSED Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation