Ex Parte Grosbach et alDownload PDFBoard of Patent Appeals and InterferencesJul 26, 201210675677 (B.P.A.I. Jul. 26, 2012) Copy Citation UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS AND INTERFERENCES ____________ Ex parte DAVID A. NORGAARD, JAMES F. MIKOS, GLEN H. HANDLOGTEN, and LYLE E. GROSBACH ____________ Appeal 2009-011294 Application 10/675,677 Technology Center 2400 ____________ Before MARC S. HOFF, CARLA M. KRIVAK, and ELENI MANTIS MERCADER, Administrative Patent Judges. KRIVAK, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of claims 1-18. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. Appeal 2009-011294 Application 10/675,677 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants’ claimed invention is directed to methods and apparatus for hierarchical scheduling (Spec. 1:4-6). Independent claim 1, reproduced below, is representative of the subject matter on appeal. 1. A method comprising: selecting a first winning entry from one of a plurality of main calendars during a time unit, the first winning entry indicating a first pipe to be serviced during the time unit; determining that no pipe flow corresponding to the winning first pipe currently needs to be serviced during the time unit; selecting a second winning entry from the plurality of main calendars during the time unit, the second winning entry indicating a second pipe or an autonomous flow to be serviced during the time unit; and servicing the autonomous flow or a pipe flow corresponding to the second winning entry during the time unit. REFERENCES and REJECTIONS The Examiner rejected claims 1-12 and 14-18 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) based upon the teachings of Pei (6,272,109 B1). The Examiner rejected claim 13 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based upon the teachings of Pei and Li (6,560,230 B1). ANALYSIS Appellants contend Pei does not teach “selecting a second winning entry from a plurality of main calendars during the time unit” and “the Appeal 2009-011294 Application 10/675,677 3 second winning entry indicating a second pipe or an autonomous flow to be serviced during the time unit,” as claimed (Br. 15). In light of the Examiner’s findings, we adopt them as our own. We agree Pei teaches if a scheduler finds a CBR (constant bit rate) VCC (virtual circuit connection) in a high priority column and has a cell to transmit over that VCC, the cell is transmitted. If not, the scheduler looks to a low priority column. (Ans. 20; Pei col. 11, l. 14-18). Additionally, Pei teaches if there is no cell ready to transmit, the scheduler finds a VCC at the head of a work list with a cell that is ready to transmit, and the cell is then transmitted over that VCC in that time slot (Pei col. 12, l. 25-31). Thus, as Pei teaches selecting and sending a second entry during the time unit, claims 1-12 and 14-18 are anticipated by Pei. Appellants provide no additional arguments regarding the obviousness rejection of claim 13 over Pei and Li, except to state claim 13 is allowable by virtue of its dependence on claim 12 (Br. 16). Claim 13 is also affirmed over the combination of Pei and Li, for the same reasons stated supra. DECISION The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-18 is affirmed. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv)(2010). AFFIRMED tkl Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation