Ex Parte Chavali et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Oct 5, 2018

14015690 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 5, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
14/015,690 08/30/2013
23494 7590 10/10/2018
TEXAS INSTRUMENTS IN CORPORA TED
PO BOX 655474, MIS 3999
DALLAS, TX 75265
UNITED ST A TES OF AMERICA
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Balatripura Sodemma Chavali
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.
TI-73653 8674
EXAMINER
HUYNH,KIMT
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2185
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
10/10/2018 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):
uspto@ti.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte BALATRIPURA SODEMMA CHA VALI,
KARL FREDRICH GREB, and RAJEEV SUV ARNA
Appeal2018-001862
Application 14/015,690 1
Technology Center 2100
Before JEAN R. HOMERE, CAROLYN D. THOMAS, and
DAVID J. CUTITTA II, Administrative Patent Judges.
CUTITT A, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's Final
Rejection of claims 1-21, all pending claims of the application. We have
jurisdiction over this appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We AFFIRM.
1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Texas Instruments
Incorporated. See Br. 1.
Appeal 2018-001862
Application 14/015,690
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
According to Appellants, the claimed invention relates to maintaining
an appropriate Safety Integrity Level in an electronic device by preventing
certain functions from interfering with other functions e.g., by using a
memory protection unit. See Spec. ,r,r 5, 23. 2
Exemplary Claims
Claims 1, 9, and 17 are independent claims. Claim 1 is exemplary and
is reproduced with limitation at issue emphasized:
Br. 7.
1. A system, comprising:
a bus slave coupled to a plurality of bus masters via one or more
interconnects;
and
a memory protection unit (MPU), the MPU and only the MPU
having a set of access permissions that grants access to the bus
slave from a first bus master and denies access to the bus slave
from a second bus master;
wherein the MPU generates an error response as result of a
transaction generated by a task on the second bus master
attempting to access the bus slave.
REFERENCES AND REJECTIONS
Claims 1-6, 9-14, and 17-21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I02(b)
as anticipated by Nadehara (US 2012/0023270 Al; Jan. 26, 2012). Final
Act. 2-11.
2 Throughout this Decision, we refer to: (1) Appellants' Specification
("Spec.") filed August 30, 2013; (2) the Final Rejection mailed December
15, 2016; (3) the Appeal Brief ("Br.") filed April 17, 201 7; and ( 4) the
Examiner's Answer ("Ans.") mailed August 25, 2017.
2
Appeal 2018-001862
Application 14/015,690
Claims 7, 8, 15, and 16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as
unpatentable over the combination ofNadehara and Inuo (US 2009/0300324
Al; Dec. 3, 2009). Final Act. 11-14.
Our review in this appeal is limited only to the above rejections and
the issues raised by Appellants. Arguments not made are waived. See
37 C.F.R. §§ 4I.37(c)(l)(iv), 4I.39(a)(l).
ANALYSIS
Rejection Under 35 U.S.C. § I02(b)
Claims 1-6, 9-14, and 17-21
Issue: Does the Examiner err in finding Nadehara discloses "a
memory protection unit (MPU), the MPU and only the MPU having a set of
access permissions that grants access to the bus slave from a first bus master
and denies access to the bus slave from a second bus master," as set forth in
exemplary claim 1?
The Examiner finds Nadehara discloses the limitation at issue. See
Final Act. 2-3; Ans. 14--16 (citing Nadehara i-fi-f53-67).
Appellants ignore the Examiner's specific findings and instead argue
"Nadehara (paragraphs [0015] - [0016]) ... teaches that a master device
and the slave device must have process IDs for permitting access to the
slave; not a MPU and only the MPU having a set of access permissions that
grants access to the bus slave." Br. 4--5.
We are unpersuaded of error because Appellants' argument does not
address the Examiner's findings. Nadehara, at Figures 8-13 and paragraphs
37-73, describes Nadehara's prior art. Thus, the Examiner's findings rely
3
Appeal 2018-001862
Application 14/015,690
on Nadehara's description of its prior art. See Final Act. 2-3; Ans. 14--16
( citing Nadehara i-fi-f 53-67).
Appellants' argument focuses only on Nadehara's paragraphs 15 and
16, which relate to Nadehara's invention rather than to Nadehara's prior art.
N adehara ,r 15 ( discussing a "computer system according to the present
invention .... "). Such a strawman argument does not persuade us of
Examiner error.
Appellants next argue that Nadehara teaches away from the claimed
invention. Br. 4.
We are unpersuaded of Examiner error. The question of whether a
reference "teaches away" from the invention is inapplicable to an
anticipation analysis. Celeritas Technologies Ltd. v. Rockwell International
Corp., 150 F.3d 1354, 1361, (Fed. Cir. 1998) (The prior art was held to
anticipate the claims even though it taught away from the claimed
invention.).
Accordingly, we agree with the Examiner's findings and we sustain
the Examiner's 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) rejection of claim 1, and of claims 2---6,
9-14, and 17-21, which Appellants do not argue separately. See Br. 5.
Rejection Under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
Claims 7, 8, 15, and 16
Appellants do not present separate arguments in response to the
obviousness rejection and so we also sustain the Examiner's 103(a) rejection
of claim 7, 8, 15, and 16. See Br. 5.
4
Appeal 2018-001862
Application 14/015,690
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner's rejections of claims 1---6, 9-14, and 17-21
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b).
We affirm the Examiner's rejection of claims 7, 8, 15, and 16 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
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
5