Ex Parte Mayer et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardSep 23, 201410989880 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 23, 2014) Copy Citation 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 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation