Ex Parte 7,574,272 B2 et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Apr 27, 2017

90012284 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 27, 2017)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
90/012,284 05/07/2012
34395 7590 04/28/2017
OLYMPIC PA TENT WORKS PLLC
P.O. BOX 4277
SEATTLE, WA 98104
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
7,574,272 B2
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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
9319S-003395/RXA 5302
EXAMINER
CAMPBELL, JOSHUA D
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3992
MAILDATE DELIVERY MODE
04/28/2017 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte HUNTS POINT VENTURES, INC.
Appeal2015-004410
Reexamination Contro 1 90/012 ,2 84
Patent 7,574,272 B2
Technology Center 3900
Before JOHN A. JEFFERY, ERIC B. CHEN, and
JEREMY J. CURCURI, Administrative Patent Judges.
CURCURI, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON REMAND
Patent 7,574,272 B2 (Gibbs) is under reexamination. Another panel
of this Board1 entered a decision on appeal affirming the Examiner's
rejection of claims 1-10. Exparte Hunts Point Ventures, Inc., 2015 WL
2063308 (PT AB May 1, 2015). In that decision, the earlier panel affirmed
the Examiner's obviousness rejection of claims 1-10 over the Birrell and
Cunniff references cited below, but did not reach the other rejections. Id. at
*4. The earlier panel also denied Appellant's request to rehear that decision.
Ex parte Hunts Point Ventures, Inc., 2015 WL 5451229 (PTAB Sept. 15,
2015). Appellant timely appealed from that decision to the U.S. Court of
1 Judge Chen replaces then-Judge Dillon on the current panel.
Appeal2015-004410
Reexamination Contro 1 90/012 ,2 84
Patent 7,574,272 B2
Appeals for the Federal Circuit. The Federal Circuit entered a decision, and
issued a mandate, vacating the Board's decision and remanding for further
proceedings consistent with the Federal Circuit's decision. In re
Schweickert, 2017 WL 371374 (Fed. Cir. Jan. 26, 2017) (unpublished). The
appeal is now before the Board for further consideration consistent with the
Federal Circuit's remand.
Claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over
Maeda (US 5,699,336; issued Dec. 16, 1997) and Okumura (JP 8-129454;
published May 21, 1996). Final Act. 2-7, Ans. 5-17.
Claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over
Maeda and Cunniff (US 5,842,015; issued Nov. 24, 1998). Final Act. 7-13,
Ans. 17-19.
Claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over
Maeda and Derr (US 6,453,375 Bl; issued Sept. 17, 2002). Final Act. 13-
18, Ans. 19-21.
Claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over
Birrell (US 6,332, 17 5 B 1; issued Dec. 18, 2001) and Okumura. Final Act.
18-23, Ans. 21-24.
Claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over
Birrell and Cunniff. Final Act. 24--30, Ans. 24--25.
Claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over
Birrell and Derr. Final Act. 30-35, Ans. 24--25.
Claims 1, 2, and 7-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
obvious over Okumura and Akiyama (JP 6-318359; published Nov. 15,
1994). Final Act. 36, Ans. 25-28.
2
Appeal2015-004410
Reexamination Contro 1 90/012 ,2 84
Patent 7,574,272 B2
We reverse.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant's invention relates to "optimizing data transfer from a
spinning media in a portable audio device." Gibbs, col. 1, 11. 18-19. Claim
1 is illustrative and reproduced below:
1. A portable media player comprising:
a processor that executes commands;
a random-access-memory component that stores
compressed data in more than two different random-access-
memory buffer areas, each random-access-memory buffer
lockable and unlockable by the processor;
a codec component, controlled by the processor, that
reads compressed data from a locked random-access-memory
buffer, the locked random-access-memory buffer selected from
among the more than two different random-access-memory
buffer areas and locked by the processor to prevent writing of
the locked random-access-memory buffer by another
component, and that generates a decompressed signal from the
read compressed data that is rendered by a data-rendering
component;
a non-volatile, mass-storage component that stores
compressed data and that writes compressed data, under control
of the processor, to unlocked random-access-memory buffers;
and
a battery power supply to provide electrical power to the
processor, random-access memory component, codec
component, data-rendering component, and non-volatile, mass-
storage component.
3
Appeal2015-004410
Reexamination Contro 1 90/012 ,2 84
Patent 7,574,272 B2
PRINCIPLES OF LAW
We review the appealed rejections for error based upon the issues
identified by Appellant, and in light of the arguments and evidence produced
thereon. Ex parte Frye, 94 USPQ2d 1072, 1075 (BPAI 2010) (precedential).
When a work is available in one field of endeavor, design
incentives and other market forces can prompt variations of it,
either in the same field or a different one. If a person of
ordinary skill can implement a predictable variation, § 103
likely bars its patentability. For the same reason, if a technique
has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary
skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar
devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious unless
its actual application is beyond his or her skill. Sakraida [ v. Ag
Pro, Inc., 425 U.S. 273 (1976)] and Anderson's-Black Rock[,
Inc. v. Pavement Salvage Co., 396 U.S. 57 (1969)] are
illustrative-a court must ask whether the improvement is more
than the predictable use of prior art elements according to their
established functions.
KSR Int'! Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 417 (2007).
ANALYSIS
THE OBVIOUSNESS REJECTION OF CLAIMS 1-10 OVER BIRRELL AND CUNNIFF
The Examiner finds Birrell and Cunniff teach all limitations of
claims 1-10. Final Act. 24--30 (incorporating by reference Request 92-113),
Ans. 24--25. The Examiner reasons:
Birrell discloses the limitations of claim 1 with the exception of
locking/unlocking memory management. However, it would
have been obvious to a person of the ordinary skill in the art to
modify the system of Birrell with the teachings of Cunniff of
using a "semaphore locking mechanism" for restricting access to
an audio shared memory buffer for preventing overwriting from
other applications programs or other components (Cunniff, Fig.
4
Appeal2015-004410
Reexamination Contro 1 90/012 ,2 84
Patent 7,574,272 B2
4, Col. 2, 11. 63-66) because it was a known technique that []
would yield predictable results.
Final Act. 29--30 (emphasis added); see also Request 109--111.
Appellant presents the following principal argument: "[I]n Maeda's
recording and reproducing apparatus, only the memory controller accesses
the RAM buffer. For this reason, there is no need for the introduction of a
locking mechanism, since the RAM buffer is not a shared resource." App.
Br. 20. "The Examiner has failed to even make a cursory attempt to justify
introduction of locking in Maeda's data-storage section." App. Br. 21. See
also Reply Br. 7--46.
In response, the Examiner explains that the Examiner assumes
Appellant refers to Birrell. Ans. 21. The Examiner further explains that
Birrell needs some type of logic to prevent overwriting and
Cunniff or Derr teach[ es] a method of using a "semaphore
locking mechanism" to prevent overwriting. Thus, by using the
known method of "semaphore locking mechanism" of Cunniff
or Derr in Birrell' s system it would yield predictable results
such as to prevent overwriting.
Ans. 24--25 (emphasis added).
Based upon our review of the record before us, including the Federal
Circuit's remand, we conclude the Examiner erred in the legal conclusion of
obviousness.
Birrell (Figure 1) discloses a portable audio player. Birrell (Abstract)
discloses playing, with the audio player, data stored in RAM, and when
appropriate, copying additional data from the disk drive to the RAM.
Cunniff (col. 2, 11. 63-66) discloses the use of a semaphore mechanism.
Appellant admits that a semaphore is a type of lock. See Reply Br. 20.
5
Appeal2015-004410
Reexamination Contro 1 90/012 ,2 84
Patent 7,574,272 B2
Nonetheless, on the record before us, we do not see, in Birrell,
competition for access to RAM that creates a problem for a skilled artisan to
resolve with a semaphore. Put another way, the record before us does not
sufficiently establish that Birrell has a problem with overwriting in RAM
that would give a skilled artisan a reason to modify Birrell to prevent
overwriting.
Thus, we conclude the Examiner's legal conclusion of obviousness
lacks the required rational underpinning because the Examiner's articulated
reason to combine the references, namely to prevent overwriting, is not a
sufficient reason for a skilled artisan to combine Birrell and Cunniff.
We, therefore, do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of claims 1-10
as obvious over Birrell and Cunniff.
THE OBVIOUSNESS REJECTION OF CLAIMS 1-10 OVER BIRRELL AND DERR
The Examiner finds Birrell and Derr teach all limitations of claims 1-
10. Final Act. 30-35 (incorporating by reference Request 113-133), Ans.
24--25. The Examiner reasons:
Birrell discloses the limitations of claim 1 with the exception of
locking/unlocking technique. However, it would have been
obvious to a person of the ordinary skill in the art to modify the
system of Birrell with the teachings of Derr such as using a
semaphore locking to prevent overwriting of other components
(Derr, Co[l]. 1, 11. 30-34; Col. 4, 11. 53-55; Figs. 2--4) because it
was a known technique that [] would yield predictable results.
Final Act. 35 (emphasis added); see also Request 129-131.
Appellant presents the following principal argument: "[I]n Maeda's
recording and reproducing apparatus, only the memory controller accesses
the RAM buffer. For this reason, there is no need for the introduction of a
6
Appeal2015-004410
Reexamination Contro 1 90/012 ,2 84
Patent 7,574,272 B2
locking mechanism, since the RAM buffer is not a shared resource." App.
Br. 22. "The Examiner has failed to even make a cursory attempt to justify
introduction of locking in Maeda's data-storage section." App. Br. 22. See
also Reply Br. 7--46.
In response, the Examiner explains that the Examiner assumes
Appellant refers to Birrell. Ans. 21. The Examiner further explains that
Birrell needs some type of logic to prevent overwriting and
Cunniff or Derr teach[ es] a method of using a "semaphore
locking mechanism" to prevent overwriting. Thus, by using the
known method of "semaphore locking mechanism" of Cunniff
or Derr in Birrell's system it would yield predictable results
such as to prevent overwriting.
Ans. 24--25 (emphasis added).
Based upon our review of the record before us, including the Federal
Circuit's remand, we conclude the Examiner erred in the legal conclusion of
obviousness.
Birrell (Figure 1) discloses a portable audio player. Birrell (Abstract)
discloses playing, with the audio player, data stored in RAM, and when
appropriate, copying additional data from the disk drive to the RAM. Derr
(col. 1, 11. 30-34; col. 4, 11. 53-55; Figs. 2--4) discloses the use of a
semaphore mechanism. Appellant admits that a semaphore is a type of lock.
See Reply Br. 20.
Nonetheless, on the record before us, we do not see, in Birrell,
competition for access to RAM that creates a problem for a skilled artisan to
resolve with a semaphore. Put another way, the record before us does not
sufficiently establish that Birrell has a problem with overwriting in RAM
7
Appeal2015-004410
Reexamination Contro 1 90/012 ,2 84
Patent 7,574,272 B2
that would give a skilled artisan a reason to modify Birrell to prevent
overwriting.
Thus, we conclude the Examiner's legal conclusion of obviousness
lacks the required rational underpinning because the Examiner's articulated
reason to combine the references, namely to prevent overwriting, is not a
sufficient reason for a skilled artisan to combine Birrell and Derr.
We, therefore, do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of claims 1-10
as obvious over Birrell and Derr.
THE OBVIOUSNESS REJECTION OF CLAIMS 1-10 OVER MAEDA AND CUNNIFF
The Examiner finds Maeda and Cunniff teach all limitations of
claims 1-10. Final Act. 7-13 (incorporating by reference Request 31-52),
Ans. 17-19. The Examiner reasons:
Maeda discloses the limitations of claim 1 with the exception of
locking/unlocking memory management. However, it would
have been obvious to a person of the ordinary skill in the art to
modify the system of Maeda with the teachings of Cunniff of
using a "semaphore locking mechanism" for restricting access to
an audio shared memory buffer for preventing overwriting from
other applications programs or other components (Cunniff, Fig.
4, Col. 2, 11. 63-66) because it was a known technique that []
would yield predictable results.
Final Act. 12-13 (emphasis added); see also Request 48-51.
Appellant presents the following principal argument: "[I]n Maeda's
recording and reproducing apparatus, only the memory controller accesses
the RAM buffer. For this reason, there is no need for the introduction of a
locking mechanism, since the RAM buffer is not a shared resource." App.
Br. 1 7. "The Examiner has failed to even make a cursory attempt to justify
8
Appeal2015-004410
Reexamination Contro 1 90/012 ,2 84
Patent 7,574,272 B2
introduction of locking in Maeda's data-storage section." App. Br. 17. See
also Reply Br. 7--46.
In response, the Examiner further explains that
Maeda needs some type of logic to prevent overwriting and
Cunniff teaches a method of using a "semaphore locking
mechanism" to prevent overwriting. Thus, by using the known
method of "semaphore locking mechanism" of Cunniff in
Maeda's system it would yield predictable results such as to
prevent overwriting.
Ans. 19 (emphasis added).
Based upon our review of the record before us, including the Federal
Circuit's remand, we conclude the Examiner erred in the legal conclusion of
obviousness.
Maeda (Figure 1) discloses a recording and reproducing apparatus.
Maeda (Abstract) discloses:
A reproducing apparatus in which a reproduction signal
reproduced from a recording medium is temporarily stored in a
memory and is thereafter read out, and in which, when the
amount of accumulation of the reproduction signal stored in the
memory becomes equal to or larger than a predetennined value,
a function of at least one section of the reproducing apparatus is
inhibited.
Cunniff (col. 2, 11. 63---66) discloses the use of a semaphore mechanism.
Appellant admits that a semaphore is a type of lock. See Reply Br. 20.
Nonetheless, on the record before us, we do not see, in Maeda,
competition for access to memory that creates a problem for a skilled artisan
to resolve with a semaphore. Put another way, the record before us does not
sufficiently establish that Maeda has a problem with overwriting in memory
9
Appeal2015-004410
Reexamination Contro 1 90/012 ,2 84
Patent 7,574,272 B2
that would give a skilled artisan a reason to modify Maeda to prevent
overwriting.
Thus, we conclude the Examiner's legal conclusion of obviousness
lacks the required rational underpinning because the Examiner's articulated
reason to combine the references, namely to prevent overwriting, is not a
sufficient reason for a skilled artisan to combine Maeda and Cunniff.
We, therefore, do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of claims 1-10
as obvious over Maeda and Cunniff.
THE OBVIOUSNESS REJECTION OF CLAIMS 1-10 OVER MAEDA AND DERR
The Examiner finds Maeda and Derr teach all limitations of claims 1-
10. Final Act. 13-18 (incorporating by reference Request 52-72), Ans. 19-
21. The Examiner reasons:
Maeda discloses the limitations of claim 1 with the exception of
locking/unlocking technique. However, it would have been
obvious to a person of the ordinary skill in the art to modify the
system of Maeda with the teachings of Derr such as using a
semaphore locking mechanism to prevent overwriting of other
components (Derr, Co[l]. 1, 11. 30-34; Col. 4, 11. 53-55; Figs. 2-
4) because it was a known technique that [] would yield
predictable results.
Final Act. 17-18 (emphasis added); see also Request 68-71.
Appellant presents the following principal argument: "[I]n Maeda's
recording and reproducing apparatus, only the memory controller accesses
the RAM buffer. For this reason, there is no need for the introduction of a
locking mechanism, since the RAM buffer is not a shared resource." App.
Br. 18. "The Examiner has failed to even make a cursory attempt to justify
10
Appeal2015-004410
Reexamination Contro 1 90/012 ,2 84
Patent 7,574,272 B2
introduction of locking in Maeda's data-storage section." App. Br. 18. See
also Reply Br. 7--46.
In response, the Examiner further explains that
Maeda needs some type of logic to prevent overwriting and
Derr teaches a method of using a "semaphore locking"
mechanism to prevent overwriting. Thus, by using the known
method of "semaphore locking" mechanism of Derr in Maeda's
system it would yield predictable results such as to prevent
overwriting.
Ans. 21 (emphasis added).
Based upon our review of the record before us, including the Federal
Circuit's remand, we conclude the Examiner erred in the legal conclusion of
obviousness.
Maeda (Figure 1) discloses a recording and reproducing apparatus.
Maeda (Abstract) discloses:
A reproducing apparatus in which a reproduction signal
reproduced from a recording medium is temporarily stored in a
memory and is thereafter read out, and in which, when the
amount of accumulation of the reproduction signal stored in the
memory becomes equal to or larger than a predetennined value,
a function of at least one section of the reproducing apparatus is
inhibited.
Derr (col. 1, 11. 30-34; col. 4, 11. 53-55; Figs. 2--4) discloses the use of a
semaphore mechanism. Appellant admits that a semaphore is a type of lock.
See Reply Br. 20.
Nonetheless, on the record before us, we do not see, in Maeda,
competition for access to memory that creates a problem for a skilled artisan
to resolve with a semaphore. Put another way, the record before us does not
sufficiently establish that Maeda has a problem with overwriting in memory
11
Appeal2015-004410
Reexamination Contro 1 90/012 ,2 84
Patent 7,574,272 B2
that would give a skilled artisan a reason to modify Maeda to prevent
overwriting.
Thus, we conclude the Examiner's legal conclusion of obviousness
lacks the required rational underpinning because the Examiner's articulated
reason to combine the references, namely to prevent overwriting, is not a
sufficient reason for a skilled artisan to combine Maeda and Derr.
We, therefore, do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of claims 1-10
as obvious over Maeda and Derr.
THE OBVIOUSNESS REJECTION OF CLAIMS 1-10 OVER MAEDA AND OKUMURA
The Examiner finds Maeda and Okumura teach all limitations of
claims 1-10. Final Act. 2-7 (incorporating by reference Request 9-30),
Ans. 5-17. The Examiner reasons:
Maeda discloses the limitations of claim 1 with the exception of
locking/unlocking memory management. However, it would
have been obvious to a person of the ordinary skill in the art to
modify the system of Maeda with the teachings of Okumura of
using flags to lock blocks of the memory buffer to prevent
writing by another component (Okumura, [0049]) because it was
a known technique that [] would yield predictable results.
Final Act. 7 (emphasis added); see also Request 27-29.
Appellant presents the following principal arguments:
1. Okumura teaches flags; Okumura does not teach locks. See
App. Br. 9-12; see also Reply Br. 7--46.
11. "[I]n the case of Maeda's recording and reproducing apparatus,
as discussed above, as clearly stated by Maeda throughout the specification,
and as clearly shown in Figure 1 of Maeda, only memory controller 12 in the
data-storage section 40 accesses the RAM buffer 13. RAM buffer 13 is not a
12
Appeal2015-004410
Reexamination Contro 1 90/012 ,2 84
Patent 7,574,272 B2
shared resource." App. Br. 15. "The Examiner has failed to make even a
cursory attempt to show how locking would be introduced into Maeda's
recording and reproducing apparatus, to discuss why locking would be
introduced and what benefits that it would provide, or to discuss, in any way,
how Maeda's memory controller could be modified in order to use locking."
App. Br. 15. See also Reply Br. 7--46.
In response, the Examiner explains that "according to the definition in
the prosecution history the term 'locked' means 'a memory in which access
is prevented by certain components'." Ans. 5. The Examiner further
explains that "Okumura teaches that controller 26 disables each block in
which data is stored for write protection by using a flag to lock some blocks
of the buffer memory 25 to prevent overwriting." Ans. 9.
The Examiner further explains that
[i]t is noted that there is a need of a logic in Maeda to
prevent overwriting, i.e., when the write pointer W catches up
the address designated by the read pointer R, then R =x.
Likewise, Okumura teaches using 'flags' or "locking" to
prevent overwriting. Maeda needs some type of logic to
prevent overwriting and Okumura teaches a method of using
flags [or 'locking'] to prevent overwriting. Thus, by using the
method of flags of Okumura in Maeda's system it would yield
predictable results such as to prevent overwriting by using the
known method of flags as taught by Okumura ([0049]).
Ans. 16-17 (emphasis added).
Based upon our review of the record before us, including the Federal
Circuit's remand, we conclude the Examiner erred in finding Okumura
teaches the recited limitation (claim 1) "each random-access-memory buffer
lockable and unlockable by the processor" and in the legal conclusion of
obviousness.
13
Appeal2015-004410
Reexamination Contro 1 90/012 ,2 84
Patent 7,574,272 B2
Regarding argument (i), first, we must construe the term "lockable"
(memory buffer) as recited in claim 1. See In re Geerdes, 491 F.2d 1260,
1262 (CCPA 1974) ("Before considering the rejections ... , we must first
[determine the scope of] the claims").
In this regard, Appellant's Specification discloses the following:
Part of the efficiency provided by the buffering techniques
of the system 100 is that only one buffer is "Locked" for a
reading to the CODEC 114 while the other buffers are available
for read/write operations. In the examples illustrated in FIGS. 4-
9, sixteen buffers are allocated as part of the buffer 124. Thus,
only 1/16 of the total buffer space is locked for data transfer to
the CODEC 114 and is thus unavailable for other read/write
operations. However, the remaining 15/16 of the total buffer
space are available to be filled each time the storage device 126
is activated. Such operation is in sharp contrast to a typical
buffering operation in which a buff er is allocated into two
portions with only one-half of the buffer space available for
read/write operations while the other half of the buff er space is
locked for data transfer operations to the CODEC.
Spec. col. 10, 11. 42-56 (emphasis omitted).
The plain meaning of "lockout" in the computer context is: "The act
of denying access to a given resource (file, memory location, I/O port),
usually to ensure that only one program at a time uses that resource."
MICROSOFT COMPUTER DICTIONARY 316 (5th ed. 2002).
Thus, we construe "lockable" (memory buffer) as (a memory buffer)
capable of denying access to a given resource (file, memory location, I/O
port). This construction is consistent with Appellant's Specification and is
consistent with the Examiner's explanation that "according to the definition
in the prosecution history the term 'locked' means 'a memory in which
access is prevented by certain components'." Ans. 5.
14
Appeal2015-004410
Reexamination Contro 1 90/012 ,2 84
Patent 7,574,272 B2
Given our construction, we review the Examiner's finding (see Final
Act. 4--7) that Okumura teaches the recited (claim 1) "each random-access-
memory buffer lockable and unlockable by the processor."
Okumura (i-f 49) discloses "when a certain block is judged as one for
which writing should be disabled, the controller 26 sets a write protection
judgment flag that corresponds to this block into 'write disabled' in the
memory management table 27 so that no data can be stored into this block."
Emphasis omitted.
We do not see Okumura disclosing (claim 1) "each random-access-
memory buffer lockable and unlockable by the processor" because we agree
with Appellant that Okumura's flag is not a lock; rather, Okumura's flag is
stored information. In particular, Okumura's flag, which is stored
information in the memory management table, does not deny access to a
given resource (certain block) (when there is competition for access). See
App. Br. 9--12; see also Reply Br. 7--46.
In reaching our conclusion, we note that Appellant admits that a
semaphore is a type of lock. See Reply Br. 20. Further, we note that a
semaphore may include a flag. See Reply Br. 20-21. That said, this does
not mean that a flag is a lock because a flag does not deny access to a given
resource (when there is competition for access); rather, the flag is stored
information.
Thus, we are persuaded the Examiner erred in finding Okumura
teaches the recited (claim 1) "each random-access-memory buffer lockable
and unlockable by the processor."
15
Appeal2015-004410
Reexamination Contro 1 90/012 ,2 84
Patent 7,574,272 B2
Regarding argument (ii), Maeda (Figure 1) discloses a recording and
reproducing apparatus. Maeda (Abstract) discloses:
A reproducing apparatus in which a reproduction signal
reproduced from a recording medium is temporarily stored in a
memory and is thereafter read out, and in which, when the
amount of accumulation of the reproduction signal stored in the
memory becomes equal to or larger than a predetennined value,
a function of at least one section of the reproducing apparatus is
inhibited.
In addition, on the record before us, we do not see, in Maeda,
competition for access to memory that creates a problem for a skilled artisan
to resolve with a lock. Put another way, the record before us does not
sufficiently establish that Maeda has a problem with overwriting in memory
that would give a skilled artisan a reason to modify Maeda to prevent
overwriting.
Thus, we conclude the Examiner's legal conclusion of obviousness
lacks the required rational underpinning because the Examiner's articulated
reason to combine the references, namely to prevent overwriting, is not a
sufficient reason for a skilled artisan to combine Maeda and Okumura.
We, therefore, do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of claims 1-10
as obvious over Maeda and Okumura.
THE OBVIOUSNESS REJECTION OF CLAIMS 1-10 OVER BIRRELL AND
OKUMURA
The Examiner finds Birrell and Okumura teach all limitations of
claims 1-10. Final Act. 18-23 (incorporating by reference Request 72-92),
Ans. 21-24. The Examiner reasons:
16
Appeal2015-004410
Reexamination Contro 1 90/012 ,2 84
Patent 7,574,272 B2
Birrell discloses the limitations of claim 1 with the exception of
locking/unlocking memory management. However, it would
have been obvious to a person of the ordinary skill in the art to
modify the system of Birrell with the teachings of Okumura of
using flags to lock blocks of the memory buffer to prevent
writing by another component (Okumura, [0049]) because it was
a known technique that [] would yield predictable results.
Final Act. 23 (emphasis added); see also Request 89--91.
Appellant presents the following principal argument: "[I]n Maeda's
recording and reproducing apparatus, only the memory controller accesses
the RAM buffer. For this reason, there is no need for the introduction of a
locking mechanism, since the RAM buffer is not a shared resource." App.
Br. 19. The Examiner does not show how or why locking would be
introduced into Maeda's recording and reproducing apparatus. See App. Br.
19-20. See also Reply Br. 7--46.
In response, the Examiner explains that the Examiner assumes
Appellant refers to Birrell. Ans. 21. The Examiner further explains that
Birrell needs some type of logic to prevent overwriting and
Okumura teaches a method of using flags [or 'locking'] to
prevent overwriting. Thus, by using the method of flags of
Okumura in Birrell's system it would yield predictable results
such as to prevent overwriting by using the known method of
flags as taught by Okumura ([0049]).
Ans. 24 (emphasis added).
Based upon our review of the record before us, including the Federal
Circuit's remand, we conclude the Examiner erred in the legal conclusion of
obviousness.
17
Appeal2015-004410
Reexamination Contro 1 90/012 ,2 84
Patent 7,574,272 B2
Birrell (Figure 1) discloses a portable audio player. Birrell (Abstract)
discloses playing, with the audio player, data stored in RAM, and when
appropriate, copying additional data from the disk drive to the RAM.
Okumura (i-f 49) discloses "when a certain block is judged as one for
which writing should be disabled, the controller 26 sets a write protection
judgment flag that corresponds to this block into 'write disabled' in the
memory management table 27 so that no data can be stored into this block."
Emphasis omitted.
Nonetheless, on the record before us, we do not see, in Birrell,
competition for access to RAM that creates a problem for a skilled artisan to
resolve with a lock. Put another way, the record before us does not
sufficiently establish that Birrell has a problem with overwriting in RAM
that would give a skilled artisan a reason to modify Birrell to prevent
overwriting.
Thus, we conclude the Examiner's legal conclusion of obviousness
lacks the required rational underpinning because the Examiner's articulated
reason to combine the references, namely to prevent overwriting, is not a
sufficient reason for a skilled artisan to combine Birrell and Okumura.
We, therefore, do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of claims 1-10
as obvious over Birrell and Okumura.
18
Appeal2015-004410
Reexamination Contro 1 90/012 ,2 84
Patent 7,574,272 B2
THE OBVIOUSNESS REJECTION OF CLAIMS 1-10 OVER OKUMURA AND
AKIYAMA
The Examiner finds Okumura and Akiyama teach all limitations of
claims 1, 2, and 7-10. Final Act. 36 (incorporating by reference Request
135-147), Ans. 25-28.
Appellant presents, among other arguments, the following principal
argument: Okumura teaches flags; Okumura does not teach locks. See App.
Br. 22-23; see also Reply Br. 7--46.
Based upon our review of the record before us, including the Federal
Circuit's remand, we conclude the Examiner erred in finding Okumura
teaches the recited (claim 1) "each random-access-memory buffer lockable
and unlockable by the processor."
For the reasons discussed above, we construe "lockable" (memory
buffer) as (a memory buffer) capable of denying access to a given resource
(file, memory location, I/O port). Given our construction, for the reasons
discussed above, we are persuaded the Examiner erred in finding Okumura
teaches the recited (claim 1) "each random-access-memory buffer lockable
and unlockable by the processor."
We, therefore, do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of claims 1-10
as obvious over Okumura and Akiyama.
ORDER
The Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-10 is reversed.
REVERSED
19
Appeal2015-004410
Reexamination Contro 1 90/012 ,2 84
Patent 7,574,272 B2
For Patent Owner:
Olympic Patent Works PLLC
P.O. Box 4277
Seattle, WA 98104
cc: Third Party Requester
Harness, Dickey & Pierce, P.L.C.
P.O. Box 828
Bloomfield Hills, MI 48303
20