ARM Limited

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Sep 21, 2021

2020004245 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 21, 2021)

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.
14/449,689 08/01/2014 Andreas HANSSON JRL-550-1757 9140
73459 7590 09/21/2021
NIXON & VANDERHYE, P.C.
901 NORTH GLEBE ROAD, 11TH FLOOR
ARLINGTON, VA 22203
EXAMINER
CHAPPELL, DANIEL C
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2135
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/21/2021 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):
PTOMAIL@nixonvan.com
pair_nixon@firsttofile.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte ANDREAS HANSSON, ANIRUDDHA NAGENDRAN UDIPI,
and NEHA AGARWAL
Appeal 2020-004245
Application 14/449,689
Technology Center 2100
Before MAHSHID D. SAADAT, JAMES R. HUGHES,
and JOYCE CRAIG, Administrative Patent Judges.
HUGHES, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Claims 1, 2, and 4–23 are pending, stand rejected, are appealed by
Appellant, and are the subject of our decision under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a).1
See Final Act. 1–2.2 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.

1 We use the term “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.42. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as ARM Limited. See
Appeal Br. 3.
2 We refer to Appellant’s Specification (“Spec.”), filed Aug. 1, 2014; Appeal
Brief (“Appeal Br.”), filed Feb. 2, 2020; and Reply Brief (“Reply Br.”), filed
Appeal 2020-004245
Application 14/449,689

2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claimed subject matter, according to Appellant, generally “relates
to a memory controller and memory control method for controlling a
memory device to process access requests.” Spec. ¶ 1. More specifically,
Appellant’s claims are directed to controllers and methods for buffering and
processing memory access requests. The memory controller buffers access
requests (issued by one or more master devices) in a pending access requests
storage (i.e., a buffer) prior to those access requests being processed by a
memory device. The memory controller includes access control circuitry
that controls processing of the memory access requests retrieved from the
pending access requests storage by the memory device. The memory device
includes multiple access regions, each comprising a range of memory
addresses. The memory controller also includes a query structure that
maintains a count of currently buffered access requests which specify a
memory address within the access region (the range of memory addresses
for the region). The memory controller access control circuitry uses the
count information to determine the control commands issued to the memory
device. See Spec. 2:24–9:28; Abstract. Claim 1 (directed to a controller),
claim 22 (directed to a method), and 23 (directed to a controller) are
independent. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed
subject matter:
1. A memory controller comprising:
a pending access requests storage configured to buffer
access requests issued by at least one master device prior to those
access requests being processed by a memory device;

May 20, 2020. We also refer to the Examiner’s Final Office Action (“Final
Act.”), mailed July 29, 2019; and Answer (“Ans.”) mailed Mar. 20, 2020.
Appeal 2020-004245
Application 14/449,689

3
access control circuitry configured to issue control
commands to the memory device, in order to control the memory
device to process access requests retrieved from the pending
access requests storage, the memory device comprising a
plurality of access regions, each access region comprising a
range of memory addresses;
a query structure configured to maintain, for each access
region, count information indicative of a number of currently
buffered access requests at a current time specifying a memory
address within that access region's range of memory addresses;
and
the access control circuitry being configured to reference
the query structure so as to take into account, for each access
region, the count information indicative of the number of
currently buffered access requests at the current time specifying
a memory address within that access region's range of memory
addresses when determining the control commands to be issued
to the memory device.
Appeal Br. 17 (Claims App.) (emphasis added).
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is:
Name Reference Date
Wong et al. (“Wong”) US 7,836,230 B1 Nov.16, 2010
Misra US 2007/0156958 A1 July 5, 2007
Raghuvanshi US 2007/0162775 A1 July 12, 2007
Irish et al. (“Irish”) US 2008/0126641 A1 May 29, 2008
Svendsen (“Svendsen
’381”)
US 2014/0101381 A1 Apr. 10, 2014
Udipi et al. (“Udipi”) US 2014/0149653 A1 May 29, 2014
Svendsen et al.
(“Svendsen ’467”)
US 2014/0289467 A1 Sept. 25, 2014
(filed Mar. 22, 2013)

Appeal 2020-004245
Application 14/449,689

4
REJECTIONS3
1. The Examiner rejects claims 1, 2, 4, 17, and 20–234 under
35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Irish, Udipi, and Misra. See
Final Act. 4–12.
2. The Examiner rejects claim 5 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Irish, Udipi, Misra, and Wong. See Final Act. 12–13.
3. The Examiner rejects claims 6–8 and 19 under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as being unpatentable over Irish, Udipi, Misra, and Svendsen ’467. See
Final Act. 13–15.
3. The Examiner rejects claims 9–16 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over Irish, Udipi, Misra, Svendsen ’467, and Svendsen
’381. See Final Act. 15–18.
4. The Examiner rejects claim 18 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Irish, Udipi, Misra, and Raghuvanshi. See Final Act. 19.
ANALYSIS
Obviousness Rejection
The Examiner rejects independent claim 1 (as well as independent
claims 22 and 23, and dependent claims 2, 4, 17, 20, and 21) as being
obvious over Irish, Udipi, and Misra. See Final Act. 4–6; Ans. 3–7. The

3 The Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (“AIA”), Pub. L. No. 112–29, 125
Stat. 284 (2011), amended 35 U.S.C. § 103. Because the present application
has an effective filing date after the AIA’s effective (March 16, 2013), this
decision refers to 35 U.S.C. § 103.
4 The Examiner omits claim 4, but includes claim 24, in the statement of the
rejection (see Final Act. 4). Claim 4 is pending and is addressed by the
Examiner (see Final Act. 11). Claim 24 is not pending. We correct the
statement of rejection to reflect the rejected claims for clarity of the record.
Appeal 2020-004245
Application 14/449,689

5
Examiner relies on a combination of Irish, Udipi, and Misra to teach the
recited query structure for maintaining a current buffered access request
count for each access region. See Final Act. 5–6 (citing Irish ¶ 37; Udipi ¶¶
33, 74, 76; Fig. 1; Misra ¶ 27); Ans. 4 (citing Irish ¶¶ 31, 32).
Appellant contends that the combination of Irish, Udipi, and Misra
does not teach this disputed limitations of claim 1. See Appeal Br. 8–15;
Reply Br. 2–6. Specifically, Appellant contends, inter alia, that none of the
Examiner-cited portions of Irish, Udipi, and Misra, alone or in combination,
teach a current count of buffered access requests. See Appeal Br. 8–14;
Reply Br. 2–6. Appellant contends that Irish instead “stores age rate
information for each of the address ranges mapped to the claimed access
regions” (i.e., Irish’s age address ranges) and the “age rate information is not
‘count information indicative of a number of currently buffered access
requests.’” Reply Br. 3. Appellant also contends that Udipi teaches the
“frequency of access requests to a given memory region” rather than the
current number (count) of access requests, and “[a] frequency alone is not
indicative of a count of currently buffered access requests.” Reply Br. 4.
Appellant further contends that “Misra’s ‘buffer’ refers to copy buffers that
represent the size of elements of data that can be copied. Misra’s buffer
does not relate to ‘currently buffered access requests.’” Reply Br. 5.
We agree with Appellant that the Examiner-cited portions of Irish,
Udipi, and Misra (supra) do not teach or suggest the disputed limitation of
current count of (a count of currently pending) buffered access requests. See
Appeal Br. 8–14; Reply Br. 2–6. In particular, as pointed out by Appellant,
the Examiner-cited portions of Udipi (supra) do not describe a count of
currently pending access requests, but instead describes a frequency of
Appeal 2020-004245
Application 14/449,689

6
accesses—i.e., the number of access during a particular period of time.
Further, the Examiner-cited portions of Misra relate buffering of data from
previously accessed memory, i.e., “to the buffering of data to be transferred”
not memory access requests. Appeal Br. 11. Accordingly, the Examiner
does not sufficiently explain how the proposed buffers and buffer counters
described in Irish, Udipi, and Misra would suggest to one of ordinary skill in
the art “a query structure configured to maintain, for each access region,
count information indicative of a number of currently buffered access
requests at a current time specifying a memory address within that access
region’s range of memory addresses” as recited in claim 1 (Appeal Br. 17
(Claims App.)). Thus, the Examiner does not sufficiently explain how the
combination of Irish, Udipi, and Misra would have taught or suggested the
disputed features of claim 1.
Consequently, we are constrained by the record before us to find that
the Examiner erred in finding that the combination of Irish, Udipi, and Misra
renders obvious Appellant’s claim 1. Independent claims 22 and 23 include
limitations of commensurate scope. Claims 2, 4, 17, 20, and 21 depend from
and stand with claim 1. Thus, we do not sustain the Examiner’s obviousness
rejection of claims 1, 2, 4, 17 and 20–23.
Obviousness Rejection of Claims 5–16, 18, and 19
The Examiner rejects claim 5 as being obvious in view of Irish, Udipi,
Misra, and Wong. See Final Act. 12–13. The Examiner also rejects claims
6–8 and 19 as being obvious in view of over Irish, Udipi, Misra, and
Svendsen ’467. See Final Act. 13–15. The Examiner further rejects claims
9–16 as being obvious in view of Irish, Udipi, Misra, Svendsen ’467, and
Svendsen ’381. See Final Act. 15–18. Additionally, the Examiner rejects
Appeal 2020-004245
Application 14/449,689

7
claim 18 as being obvious in view of Irish, Udipi, Misra, and Raghuvanshi.
See Final Act. 19. The Examiner does not suggest that the additional cited
references cure the deficiency of the Irish, Udipi, and Misra combination
(supra). See Final Act. 12–19.
For the same reasons as claim 1, Appellant persuades us of error in the
Examiner’s obviousness rejection of claims 5–16, 18, and 19. Therefore, we
reverse the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of claims 5–16, 18, and 19.
CONCLUSION
Appellant has shown that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1, 2,
and 4–23 under 35 U.S.C. § 103. We, therefore, do not sustain the
Examiner’s rejections of claims 1, 2, and 4–23.

Appeal 2020-004245
Application 14/449,689

8
DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:
Claim(s)
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1, 2, 4, 17,
20–23
103 Irish, Udipi, Misra 1, 2, 4, 17,
20–23
5 103 Irish, Udipi, Misra,
Wong
5
6–8, 19 103 Irish, Udipi, Misra,
Svendsen ’467
6–8, 19
9–16 103 Irish, Udipi, Misra,
Svendsen ’467,
Svendsen ’381
9–16
18 103 Irish, Udipi, Misra,
Raghuvanshi
18
Overall
Outcome
1, 2, 4–23

REVERSED