Ex Parte Arimilli et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 16, 2017

12024234 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 16, 2017)

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.
12/024,234 02/01/2008 Lakshminarayana B. Arimilli AUS920080125US1 8893
124677 7590 03/20/2017
Russell No- PT T C 6TRM ATTSR EXAMINER
8729 Shoal Creek Blvd., Suite 100
Austin, TX 78757
PATEL, KAUSHIKKUMAR M
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2138
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/20/2017 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):
stephanie@russellnglaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte LAKSHMINARAYANA B. ARIMILLI,
RAVI K. ARIMILLI, GUY L. GUTHRIE,
and WILLIAM J. STARKE
Appeal 2016-007035
Application 12/024,234
Technology Center 2100
Before JEFFREY S. SMITH, JOHNNY A. KUMAR, and
KEVIN C. TROCK, Administrative Patent Judges.
KUMAR, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal 2016-007035
Application 12/024,234
STATEMENT OF CASE
This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the
Examiner’s Final Rejection of claims 11—15. Claims 1—10 have been
canceled. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
INVENTION
Appellants’ invention relates to memory controllers for
multiprocessor systems. Spec. 1.
Claim 11 is representative of the invention and reproduced below:
11. A multiprocessor system comprising:
a plurality of processing units;
a system memory, coupled to said processing units,
includes a plurality of data blocks, wherein each data block
having a lock control section and a data section, wherein said
lock control section is configured to store a lock control bit, and
said data section is configured to store a plurality of data bits
such that lock control information and data are available via a
single access; and
a memory controller having a queue table, in response to
an access request to a data block by a first one of said
processing units and an access request to said data block by a
second one of said processing units, accesses said data block
directly to determine whether or not said lock control section of
said data block has been set, and in response to a determination
that said lock control section of said data block has been set,
places said access request from said first one processing unit in
said queue table, and places said access request from said
second one processing unit in said queue table.
2
Appeal 2016-007035
Application 12/024,234
REJECTION AT ISSUE1
Claims 11—15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Arimilli (US 2004/0073909 Al, Apr. 15, 2004), Mende
(US 6,993,523 Bl, Jan. 31, 2006), Starr (US 4,574,350, Mar. 4, 1986), and
Frank (US 5,790,851, Aug. 4, 1998). Final Act. 4-9.
ANALYSIS
Appellants have presented several arguments as to why the
combination of the references does not teach or suggest the features recited
in claims 11—15. App. Br. 4—6; Reply Br. 2^4.2
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellants’
contentions that the Examiner has erred. Further, we have reviewed the
Examiner’s response to Appellants’ arguments. The Examiner has provided
a comprehensive response to each argument presented by the Appellants on
pages 2 through 8 of the Answer. We have reviewed this response and
concur with the Examiner’s findings and conclusions. We adopt as our own
(1) the findings and reasons set forth by the Examiner in the action from
which this appeal is taken and (2) the reasons set forth by the Examiner in
the Examiner’s Answer in response to Appellants’ Appeal Brief. Ans. 2—8.
We have considered Appellants’ Reply Brief, but we find it unpersuasive to
rebut the Examiner’s response.
1 Throughout this opinion we refer to the Final Office Action (“Final Act.”)
mailed July 1, 2015, and the Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.”) mailed on May 6,
2016.
2 Throughout this opinion we refer to the Appeal Brief (“App. Br.”) dated
September 15, 2015, and Reply Brief (“Reply Br.”) dated July 6, 2016.
3
Appeal 2016-007035
Application 12/024,234
DECISION
The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 11—15 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)(l)(iv).
AFFIRMED
4