Ex Parte Grosbach et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jul 26, 2012

10675677 (B.P.A.I. Jul. 26, 2012)

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