QUALCOMM IncorporatedDownload PDFPatent Trials and Appeals BoardMay 28, 20202019005630 (P.T.A.B. May. 28, 2020) Copy Citation UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE 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 APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO. 14/716,001 05/19/2015 Mattheus Cornelis Antonius Adrianus Heddes 144942/1173-185 3408 23696 7590 05/28/2020 QUALCOMM INCORPORATED 5775 MOREHOUSE DR. SAN DIEGO, CA 92121 EXAMINER WU, STEPHANIE ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2133 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 05/28/2020 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): us-docketing@qualcomm.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ______________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ______________ Ex parte MATTHEUS CORNELIS ANTONIUS ADRIANUS HEDDES, NATARAJAN VAIDHYANATHAN, and COLIN BEATON VERRILLI ______________ Appeal 2019-005630 Application 14/716,001 Technology Center 2100 ______________ Before JOHNNY A. KUMAR, CARL L. SILVERMAN, and JASON M. REPKO, Administrative Patent Judges. KUMAR, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the final rejection of claims 1–15, 17–18, and 20–30. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We REVERSE. 1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42. According to Appellant, QUALCOMM Incorporated, is the real party in interest. Appeal Br. 2. Appeal 2019-005630 Application 14/716,001 2 Exemplary Claim Independent claim 1 illustrates the invention as follows, with the disputed elements highlighted in italics: 1. A compressed memory controller, comprising: a memory interface configured to access a system memory; and a compressed controller configured to: receive a memory access request comprising a physical address (PA) to be accessed in the system memory over a system bus; translate the received PA in the received memory access request into a physical buffer address based on a mapping of the PA to the physical buffer address in an entry of a plurality of entries in a master directory, each entry comprising: a physical buffer address corresponding to a PA in the system memory; and a pool indicator indicating a physical buffer pool among a plurality of physical buffer pools in the system memory based on the mapping of the PA to the physical buffer address, each physical buffer pool designated to store a different size of compressed data than other physical buffer pools of the plurality of physical buffer pools; and access the system memory based on the physical buffer address within the physical buffer pool corresponding to the pool indicator to perform the received memory access request. Appeal 2019-005630 Application 14/716,001 3 Rejections Claims 1, 2, 13, 20–24, and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Suzuki and Chang. Claims 3–5, 15, and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Suzuki, Chang, and Daly. Claims 7–12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Suzuki, Chang, Daly, and McWilliams. Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Suzuki, Chang, Daly, and Feekes. Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Suzuki, Chang, and Craft. Claims 17–18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Suzuki, Chang, Daly, and Okada. Claims 25–26 and 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Suzuki, Chang, and Beneviste. Claim 29 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Beneviste and Chang.2 2 The Examiner inadvertently refers to McWilliams instead of Chang in the title of the rejection for claim 29. Final Act. 25. But in the body of the rejection, the Examiner refers to Chang. Final Act. 26. So for the purposes of this appeal, we treat claim 29 as rejected under Beneviste and Chang. Appeal 2019-005630 Application 14/716,001 4 References Name Reference Date Benveniste US 6,353,871 B1 Mar. 5, 2002 Okada US 2002/0040413 A1 Apr. 4, 2002 Daly US 2008/0059728 A1 Mar. 6, 2008 McWilliams US 2008/0301256 A1 Dec. 4, 2008 Suzuki US 2012/0317334 A1 Dec. 13, 2012 Craft US 2013/0138867 A1 May 30, 2013 Feekes US 2014/0092678 A1 Apr. 3, 2014 Chang US 2016/0253105 A1 Sept. 1, 2016 ANALYSIS In the Briefs, Appellant contends the Examiner’s finding that Suzuki and Chang teach all the elements of Appellant’s claimed invention in independent claim 1 is incorrect (see Appeal Br. 7–10; Reply Br. 2–3). Appellant asserts, among other things, the claimed elements “pool indicator indicat[es] a physical buffer pool . . . based on the mapping of the PA to the physical buffer address” (hereinafter “the disputed limitation”) is not taught by Chang (Appeal Br. 10). Appellant also argues that the “chunk start address field” of Chang, alleged to correspond to the “pool indicator,” is nowhere described by Chang as being “based on the mapping of the PA to the physical buffer address.” (Id.) We agree with Appellant as our interpretation of the disclosure of Chang coincides with that of Appellant. In particular, we agree with Appellant’s analysis set forth in the Appeal Brief, page 10 which refers to Spec. ¶¶ 48, 58; Chang ¶¶ 40, 41, 45–47. Therefore, on this record, we find the weight of the evidence supports the position articulated by Appellant in the Briefs. Accordingly, we cannot sustain the Examiner’s rejection of Appeal 2019-005630 Application 14/716,001 5 independent claim 1, and independent claims 29 and 30 that recite the disputed limitation. Although Appellant makes other arguments in the Briefs, we do not address them because we find this argument is dispositive of the appeal. The Examiner rejects the dependent claims over Chang and combinations several other references. The Examiner does not find that the other references, individually or in combination with Chang, teach or suggest an indicator based on the recited mapping. Thus, we also reverse the rejection of each associated dependent claim. CONCLUSION The Examiner erred in rejecting 1–15, 17–18, and 20–30 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over the cited combinations of references. Appeal 2019-005630 Application 14/716,001 6 DECISION In summary: REVERSED Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 1, 2, 13, 20–24, 28 103 Suzuki, Chang 1, 2, 13, 20–24, 28 3–5, 15, 27 103 Suzuki, Chang, Daly 3–5, 15, 27 7–12 103 Suzuki, Chang, Daly, McWilliams 7–12 6 103 Suzuki, Chang, Daly, Feekes 6 14 103 Suzuki, Chang, Craft 14 17–18 103 Suzuki, Chang, Daly, Okada 17–18 25–26, 30 103 Suzuki, Chang, Beneviste 25–26, 30 29 103 Beneviste, Chang 29 Overall Outcome 1–15, 17– 18, 20–30 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation