Ex Parte Acharya

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jun 9, 2009

09905080 (B.P.A.I. Jun. 9, 2009)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________________

Ex parte YATIN ACHARYA
____________________

Appeal 2008-005155
Application 09/905,0801
Technology Center 2100
____________________

Decided:2 June 9, 2009
____________________

Before JEAN R. HOMERE, JAY P. LUCAS, and JOHN A. JEFFERY,
Administrative Patent Judges.

HOMERE, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

1 Filed on July 16, 2001. The real party in interest Advanced Micro Devices,
Inc.
2 The two-month time period for filing an appeal or commencing a civil
action, as recited in 37 C.F.R. § 1.304, begins to run from the decided date
shown on this page of the decision. The time period does not run from the
Mail Date (paper delivery) or Notification Date (electronic delivery).

I. STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s final
rejection of claims 1 through 13. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b).
We reverse.

Appellant’s Invention
Appellant invented a method and a flow control system for managing
traffic output of a network node (Spec. 1, ll. 3-4.) As depicted in Figure 2,
the network node contains a processor (110), a system memory (48), a
memory controller (130), and a network interface, such as a host channel
adapter (HCA-120). (Spec. 4, ll. 19-21.) Upon executing one of various
prescribed media streaming applications, the processor (110) causes the
HCA (120) to output corresponding data streams according to the InfiniBand
(IB) protocol. (Spec. 4, ll. 22-26.) However, upon detecting that the network
bandwidth is depleted for any of the prescribed data streams, the HCA (120)
halts the transmission of the data stream on a corresponding virtual lane to
thereby cause the processor to reduce the execution of the media streaming
application associated therewith. (Spec. 4, l. 28- Spec. 5, l. 11.)
Illustrative Claim
Independent claim 1 illustrates the invention as follows:
1. A method in a network node, the method comprising:
detecting by a network interface in the network node a depletion of
flow control resources representing a depletion of network bandwidth for a
prescribed data stream;
outputting by the network interface a data flow interruption request
based on the detected depletion of flow control resources; and
reducing, by a processor in the network node and based on the data
flow interruption request, the prescribed data stream by reducing execution
Appeal 2008-005155
Application 09/905,080

3
of a prescribed application resource configured for generating the prescribed
data stream.
Prior Art Relied Upon
The Examiner relies on the following prior art as evidence of
unpatentability:
Pekkala US 2002/0085493 A1 Jul. 4, 2002

Rejection on Appeal
The Examiner rejects the claims on appeal as follows:
Claims 1 through 13 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being
anticipated over Pekkala.

Appellant’s Contentions
Appellant argues that Pekkala does not teach that upon detecting a
depletion of a network bandwidth for a prescribed data stream, a network
interface in a network node outputs a data flow interruption request to cause
a processor in the network node to reduce the execution of a prescribed
application resource configured to generate the data stream, as recited in
independent claim 1. (App. Br. 6-20, Reply Br. 2-9.)

Examiner’s Findings/Conclusions
The Examiner finds that Pekkala’s disclosure of a buffer control logic,
upon detecting insufficient space in a buffer or insufficient flow control
credit to transmit a packet, notifies a flow control logic to stop transmitting
Appeal 2008-005155
Application 09/905,080

4
data packet streams in an IB switch teaches the claimed limitations. (Ans. 7-
-11.)
II. ISSUE
Has Appellant shown that the Examiner erred in finding that
Pekkala’s disclosure teaches, upon detecting a depletion of a network
bandwidth for a prescribed data stream, an interface in a network node
outputs a data flow interruption request to cause a processor therein to
reduce the execution of a prescribed application resource configured to
generate the data stream, as recited in independent claim 1?

III. FINDINGS OF FACT
The following findings of fact (FF) are supported by a preponderance
of the evidence.

Pekkala
1. Pekkala discloses a control flow mechanism that fully utilizes
the bandwidth of each link associated with a port by advertising thereon at
least two packets or credits until the port stops its respective link partner
from further transmitting any more packets. (Paras. 0015, 0019, 0063, 0065.)
2. As depicted in Figure 1, the control flow mechanism includes,
inter alia, an IB switch (106) connected to a plurality of processor (102) end
nodes via a respective IB HCA (104). (Para. 0044.)
3. As shown in Figure 2, each IB switch (106) includes a plurality
of IB ports (208) associated with respective buffers (204) for buffering IB
packets received from the IB ports. Each of the buffers includes a plurality
of IB virtual lanes (214) through which a buffer control logic (206) allocates
Appeal 2008-005155
Application 09/905,080

5
and routes the packets in and out of the buffers from and to the ports. (Paras.
0049-0051.)
4. As shown in Figure 7, upon detecting that a shared buffer (604)
is not available for storage, the buffer control logic (606) sends a signal
(744) to notify the flow control logic (726) to shut down its corresponding
link partner (752). (Paras. 0112-0113.)
IV. PRINCIPLES OF LAW
ANTICIPATION
In rejecting claims under 35 U.S.C. § 102, “[a] single prior art
reference that discloses, either expressly or inherently, each limitation of a
claim invalidates that claim by anticipation.” Perricone v. Medicis Pharm.
Corp., 432 F.3d 1368, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (citing Minn. Mining & Mfg.
Co. v. Johnson & Johnson Orthopaedics, Inc., 976 F.2d 1559, 1565 (Fed.
Cir. 1992)).
Anticipation of a patent claim requires a finding that the claim
at issue ‘reads on’ a prior art reference. In other words, if
granting patent protection on the disputed claim would allow
the patentee to exclude the public from practicing the prior art,
then that claim is anticipated, regardless of whether it also
covers subject matter not in the prior art.
Atlas Powder Co. v. IRECO, Inc., 190 F.3d 1342, 1346 (Fed Cir. 1999)
(internal citations omitted).

V. ANALYSIS
Claim 1
Independent claim 1 recites in relevant part that, upon detecting a
depletion of a network bandwidth for a prescribed data stream, a network
interface in a network node outputs a data flow interruption request to cause
Appeal 2008-005155
Application 09/905,080

6
a processor in the network node to reduce the execution of the application
resource configured to generate the data stream.
As set forth in the Findings of Fact section, Pekkala discloses
maximizing the use of the bandwidth of each link associated with a port by
advertising thereon at least two packets. (FF. 1.) Further, Pekkala discloses
a flow control mechanism having a buffer control logic in an IB switch that
notifies a flow control logic in the switch to shut down a link partner upon
detecting that no more buffering space is available for storing packet data.
(FF. 4.) We agree with Appellant that Pekkala’s flow control mechanism
does not fairly or reasonably teach the claimed network interface that
outputs an interrupt request to cause a processor to reduce the execution of
an application configured to generate a prescribed data stream. We find that
Pekkala at best teaches a controller that notifies a flow control logic to
reduce the flow of data by shutting down the link partner associated
therewith upon detecting that no additional buffer space is available. While
it can be reasonably argued that the shutting down the link partner is
intended to prevent a depletion in bandwidth, the shutdown is not actually
based on the bandwidth depletion. Rather, the shutdown of the link partner
or reduction of the data flow is based upon detecting a lack of memory space
in a buffer as opposed to a lack of bandwidth in the link partner. Similarly,
while the buffer control logic can be viewed as an interface in the switch that
causes the flow control logic to prevent a link partner associated therewith
from accepting any more data stream, we find that such data stream was not
prescribed or generated by an application resource being executed in the
flow control logic. Therefore, the incoming data stream detected by the
Appeal 2008-005155
Application 09/905,080

7
buffer control logic cannot be cannot be used to detect depletion of
bandwidth in a link partner associated therewith.
Since Appellant has shown that Pekkala fails to teach at least one
limitation required by independent claim 1, we need not address Appellant’s
remaining arguments. It follows that Appellant has shown that the Examiner
erred in finding that Pekkala anticipates independent claim 1.
Because claims 2 through 13 also recite the limitations discussed
above, Appellant has also shown error in the Examiner’s rejection of those
claims for the aforementioned reasons discussed in conjunction with claim 1.

VI. CONCLUSION OF LAW
Appellants have shown that the Examiner erred in finding that
Pekkala anticipates claims 1 through 13.

VII. DECISION
We reverse the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1 through 13.

REVERSED

erc
MANELLI DENISON & SELTER
2000 M STREET NW SUITE 700
WASHINGTON DC 20036-3307