10074019 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 17, 2013)

Ex Parte Cameron

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardJul 17, 2013

10074019 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 17, 2013)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARKOFFICE 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. 10/074,019 02/14/2002 Ken Cameron 765-0063US1 5665 92296 7590 07/17/2013 The Neudeck Law Firm C/O CPA Global P.O. Box 52050 Minneapolis, MN 55402 EXAMINER BILGRAMI, ASGHAR H ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2443 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 07/17/2013 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 KEN CAMERON ____________ Appeal 2010-012027 Application 10/074,019 Technology Center 2400 ____________ Before ALLEN R. MacDONALD, CAROLYN D. THOMAS, and CATHERINE SHIANG, Administrative Patent Judges. SHIANG, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-9 and 11-18. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We reverse. Appeal 2010-012027 Application 10/074,019 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE The present invention relates to controlling the order of datagrams processed in a system of multiple processors or multi-tasking operating systems or the like. See generally Spec. 1. Claim 1 is illustrative: 1. A method for controlling the order of datagrams, the datagrams being processed by at least one processing engine, said at least one processing engine having at least one input port and at least one output port, the method comprises the steps of: (a) each processor in the at least one processing engine, once it becomes available, taking a ticket from a ticket dispenser, the ticket having a value associated therewith; (b) waiting on an input buffer of the input port until the processor is given permission to continue according to the value of the ticket taken in step (a); (c) reading a next datagram or group of datagrams once the processor is given permission to continue; (d) signaling the input buffer for next ticket value; (e) processing the read datagram by the processor; (f) waiting on an output buffer of the output port until the processor is given permission to continue according to the value of the ticket taken in step (a); (g) writing the processed datagram once the processor is given permission to continue; (h) signaling the output buffer for next ticket value; and (i) repeating steps (a)-(h) for each ticket value. Appeal 2010-012027 Application 10/074,019 3 THE REJECTIONS The Examiner rejected claims 1-9 and 11-18 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Chang (U.S. Patent No. 6,338,078 B1). See Ans. 3- 4. ISSUE The dispositive issue argued by Appellant is:1 Under 35 U.S.C. § 103, has the Examiner erred by finding that one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to use Chang for: “once [a processor] becomes available, taking a ticket from a ticket dispenser” as recited in claim 1? ANALYSIS Claims 1-9 and 11-18 On this record, we find that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1. The Examiner finds that Although Chang did not explicitly disclose a ticket dispenser adopted to associate a ticket with each incoming datagram. However Chang disclosed a "hashing mechanism" (equivalent to a "ticket dispenser") that queues packets (datagrams) in a such a way that packets arrive at the device driver in a certain sequence (I.E value or number or weight or priority) and are then aligned according to that sequence to be processed by multiple processors (Figure.3, col.[]5, lines 8-26, lines 66-67, col.[]6, lines 1-32). It would have been obvious to one in the ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have incorporated the use 1 Appellant raises additional issues. Because the identified issue is dispositive of the appeal, we do not reach the additional issues. Appeal 2010-012027 Application 10/074,019 4 of "hashing mechanism" as disclosed by Chang instead of a "ticket dispenser" to align packets in a certain sequence to be processed by multiple processors in order to make the processing of the packets more efficient resulting in a more robust packet processing system. Ans. 4. We disagree. Chang’s hashing mechanism distributes data packets in queues based on the source and/or destination of the data packet. See Chang, col. 2. ll. 64-67; App. Br. 8. Chang teaches that if all of the data packets in a particular queue are processed, the processor corresponding to that particular queue becomes dormant even if data packets in other queues have not been processed. See Chang, col. 2, ll. 62-64; App. Br. 8. In contrast, claim 1 requires that each processor take a ticket from a ticket dispenser when the processor becomes available. Therefore, a processor will not remain dormant if data packets need to be processed. See App. Br. 8. As a result, one of ordinary skill in the art would not have found it obvious to use Chang for “once [a processor] becomes available, taking a ticket from a ticket dispenser” as recited in claim 1. Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of (1) claim 1; and (2) claims 2-9 and 11-18, which were rejected on the same ground. ORDER The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-9 and 11-18 is reversed. REVERSED gvw