Ex Parte Mayer et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 23, 2014

10989880 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 23, 2014)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte ALBRECHT MAYER, HARRY SIEBERT, and
FRANK HELLWIG
____________

Appeal 2012-004551
Application 10/989,880
Technology Center 2100
____________

Before JEFFREY S. SMITH, STANLEY M. WEINBERG, and
DANIEL N. FISHMAN, Administrative Patent Judges.

SMITH, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal 2012-004551
Application 10/989,880

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s final
rejection of claims 1–26, 28, 29, and 31–50, which are all the claims
remaining in the application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.

Representative Claim
1. A method of obtaining information about the processes
which run in a core of a program-controlled unit during the
execution of a program by the program-controlled unit,
comprising:
identifying a plurality of identical individual items of
information about processes of the same type being run in the
core of the program-controlled unit, wherein the individual
items of information are other than instructions being executed;
combining the identical individual items of information
about processes of the same type to form a single item of
overall information; and
storing the single item of overall information in a
computer-readable medium,
wherein the identifying and combining steps are
performed by a determination unit provided in the program-
controlled unit and outside of the core of the program-
controlled unit, and wherein the determination unit is controlled
by a control device provided outside the program-controlled
unit.

Prior Art
Alles
George
Smolders
Shinomiya
Sato
US 4,220,990
US 4,626,988
US 6,253,338 B1
US 2003/0037165 A1
US 2003/0051122 A1
Sept. 2, 1980
Dec. 2, 1986
June 26, 2001
Feb. 20, 2003
Mar. 13, 2003
Appeal 2012-004551
Application 10/989,880

3
Franke US 2003/0172215 A1 Sept. 11, 2003

Examiner’s Rejections
Claims 1–17, 19–26, 28, 29, 31–38, 40–42, 45, 46, and 48 stand
rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Smolders and Alles.
Claim 18 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Smolders, Alles, and George.
Claim 39 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Smolders, Alles, and Sato.
Claims 43, 44, and 47 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Smolders, Alles, and Franke.
Claims 49 and 50 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Smolders, Alles, and Shinomiya.

ANALYSIS
We adopt the findings of fact made in the Final Rejection and
Examiner’s Answer as our own. We concur with the conclusion reached in
the Examiner’s Answer. We sustain the rejections of claims 1–26, 28, 29,
and 31–50 for the reasons given by the Examiner in the Examiner’s Answer.
We highlight the following for emphasis.

Section 103 rejection of claims 1-17, 19-26, 28, 29, 31-38, 40-42, 45,
46, and 48
Claim 1 recites “the identifying and combining steps are performed by
a determination unit provided in the program-controlled unit and outside of
the core of the program-controlled unit, and wherein the determination unit
Appeal 2012-004551
Application 10/989,880

4
is controlled by a control device provided outside the program-controlled
unit.” Appellants contend the peripheral processor 13 of Alles does not
control the main processor 10. App. Br. 6. Appellants then contend the
combination of Smolders and Alles does not teach “the determination unit is
controlled by a control device provided outside the program-controlled
unit.” App. Br. 7–8.
The Examiner finds the main processor 10 of Alles teaches a control
device controlling the peripheral processor 13, or “determination unit.” Ans.
21, citing the Final Rejection mailed January 31, 2011. The Examiner states
that Appellants misapprehend the teaching of Alles in the Examiner’s
rejection. Ans. 21. The Examiner does not find the peripheral processor of
Alles controls the main processor, but rather finds the main processor of
Alles controls the peripheral processor. Id.
Appellants address the Examiner’s finding that the main processor of
Alles controls the peripheral processor for the first time in the Reply Brief.
Appellants could have presented this argument in the Appeal Brief, such that
we would have had the benefit of the Examiner’s evaluation of the
arguments in the responsive Answer. Appellants do not explain what good
cause there might be to consider the new argument. Appellants’ new
argument is thus untimely and has, accordingly, not been considered. See Ex
parte Borden, 93 USPQ2d 1473, 1474 (BPAI 2010) (informative).
We sustain the rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103. Appellants
do not present arguments for separate patentability of claims 2–17, 19–26,
28, 29, 31–38, 40–42, 45, 46, and 48, which fall with claim 1. App. Br. 8.

Appeal 2012-004551
Application 10/989,880

5
Section 103 rejections of claims 18, 39, 43, 44, 47, 49, and 50
Appellants do not present arguments for separate patentability of
claims 18, 39, 43, 44, 47, 49, and 50, which fall with claim 1. App. Br. 9.

DECISION
The rejection of claims 1–17, 19–26, 28, 29, 31–38, 40–42, 45, 46,
and 48 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Smolders and Alles is
affirmed.
The rejection of claim 18 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Smolders, Alles, and George is affirmed.
The rejection of claim 39 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Smolders, Alles, and Sato is affirmed.
The rejection of claims 43, 44, and 47 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Smolders, Alles, and Franke is affirmed.
The rejection of claims 49 and 50 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Smolders, Alles, and Shinomiya 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). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.50(f).

AFFIRMED

msc