Ex Parte Cavanna et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jun 15, 2009

10456210 (B.P.A.I. Jun. 15, 2009)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
________________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
________________

Ex parte VICENTE V. CAVANNA and PATRICIA A. THALER
________________

Appeal 2008-004464
Application 10/456,210
Technology Center 2100
________________

Decided:1 June 15, 2009
________________

Before ALLEN R. MACDONALD, LEE E. BARRETT and
ST. JOHN COURTENAY III, Administrative Patent Judges.

MACDONALD, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 22-25. Claims 1-21 and 26-30 have been cancelled. We
have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We reverse.

1 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 Data (electronic delivery).
Appeal 2008-004464
Application 10/456,210

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
According to Appellants, the invention relates to a system for
computing a cyclic redundancy code (CRC) by processing a data message a
word at a time.2
Exemplary Claim
22. A system for computing a CRC value, comprising:
at least one memory for storing a data message, a current CRC
value, and a plurality of lookup tables, the data message
including a plurality of words, each word including more
bytes than the current CRC value, each of the lookup
tables storing a plurality of multi-byte CRC values; and
a processor for processing the message a word at a time, the
processor configured to update the current CRC value
during processing of each word based on an XOR of a
first subset of the word and the current CRC value, and
based on a multi-byte CRC value retrieved from each one
of the lookup tables.

Prior Art
The Examiner relies on the following prior art references to show
unpatentability:
Garrabrant U.S. 6,766,490 B1 Jul. 20, 2004
Direen U.S. 6,934,730 B2 Aug. 23, 2005

2 See Spec. 1:5-7.
Appeal 2008-004464
Application 10/456,210

3
Examiner's Rejections
1. The Examiner rejected claims 22, 24 and 25 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Direen in view of Garrabrant.
2. The Examiner rejected claim 23 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Direen in view of Garrabrant

ISSUE
The issue before us is whether the prior art teaches or suggests a word
that includes more bytes than the current CRC value.

PRINCIPLES OF LAW
In rejecting claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103, it is incumbent upon the
Examiner to establish a factual basis to support the legal conclusion of
obviousness. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 1073 (Fed. Cir. 1988). In so
doing, the Examiner must make the factual determinations set forth in
Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17 (1966). Discussing the question
of obviousness of claimed subject matter involving a combination of known
elements, KSR Int’l v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007), explains:
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
Appeal 2008-004464
Application 10/456,210

4
illustrative—a court must ask whether the improvement is more
than the predictable use of prior art elements according to their
established functions.

Id. at 417. If the claimed subject matter cannot be fairly characterized as
involving the simple substitution of one known element for another or the
mere application of a known technique to a piece of prior art ready for the
improvement, a holding of obviousness can be based on a showing that
“there was an apparent reason to combine the known elements in the fashion
claimed.” Id. at 418. Such a showing requires
“some articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to
support the legal conclusion of obviousness” . . . . [H]owever,
the analysis need not seek out precise teachings directed to the
specific subject matter of the challenged claim, for a court can
take account of the inferences and creative steps that a person
of ordinary skill in the art would employ.

Id. (quoting In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006)).
If the Examiner’s burden is met, the burden then shifts to the
Appellants to overcome the prima facie case with argument and/or evidence.
Obviousness is then determined on the basis of the evidence as a whole and
the relative persuasiveness of the arguments. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d
1443, 1445 (Fed. Cir. 1992).

Appeal 2008-004464
Application 10/456,210

5
ANALYSIS
Claims 22, 24, 25
Representative claim 22 recites "the data message including a
plurality of words, each word including more bytes than the current CRC
value" (App. Br. 9, Claims Appendix).
Appellants contend (1) "Direen discloses that 'one limitation on
expanding the system is that the input data length (slice of data) may be no
longer than the transform length," and (2) "[t]hus, Direen explicitly admits
that the disclosed system is not capable of handling an input data length that
is longer than the transform length" (App. Br. 5).
Appellants also contend that the Examiner looked to the disclosure in
Direen that stated "'[a]nother use for more than one byte at a time is for
computers that now have 64 bit words'" (App. Br. 6). However, Appellants
argue that "[t]here is nothing in this cited portion of Direen that teaches or
suggests a system for computing a CRC value in which the input data length
is longer than the CRC length" (id.).
In addition, Appellants contend (1) that "in Figure 1 of Direen, the
input data 18 is only 32 bits long, which is the same length as the CRC
value," and (2) "Direen discloses with respect to Figure 1 that '[u]sing the
system 10 [shown in Figure 1] up to thirty-two bits of data can be processed
in a transform cycle'" (App. Br. 6). Further, Appellants argue (1) "[s]ince
the input data length (slice of data) may be no longer than the transform
length for the system disclosed in Direen . . . , then the transform length can
only be 64 bits or less," and (2) "Direen explicitly admits that the disclosed
system is not capable of handling an input data length that is longer than the
transform length" (App. Br. 6-7).
Appeal 2008-004464
Application 10/456,210

6
The Examiner found that Direen discloses (1) "each 32-bit Key Data
word 18 in Figure 1 of Direen contains 4 bytes"; (2) "the last 2-bytes of
register 22 is a CRC value since it is a value used to update CRC
codewords"; and (3) "Figure 1 of Direen teaches each 4-byte 32 bit Key
Data word 18 includes 2 more bytes than the current 2-byte CRC value
stored in the last 2 bytes of register 22 used by the XOR circuits 14 and 30 to
update CRC codewords" (Ans. 6). The Examiner also found "each CRC
value in a Table includes an 8-bit address and an 8-bit output value, hence
each table is comprised of 2-byte CRC values" (Ans. 6-7).
We find that the claims reference (1) a current CRC value, and (2) a
plurality of multi-byte CRC values. However, we find that the Examiner's
rejection does not explicitly address the distinct "CRC" values. While the
Examiner addresses an input word having more bytes than a subpart of a
CRC value, we interpret claim 22, however, as requiring that each word
includes more bytes than the entire CRC value.
Thus, Appellants have persuaded us of error in the Examiner's finding
of obviousness regarding claim 22. Accordingly, the Examiner's rejection of
claim 22 is reversed. Further, we find that the Examiner does not rely on
Garrabrant to remedy the deficiencies of Direen. Claims 24 and 25 depend
from claim 22. Thus, for the reasons discussed above with regard to
representative claim 22, the rejection of claims 24 and 25 is also reversed.
Claim 23
The Examiner separately rejected claim 23 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as unpatentable over Direen and Garrabrant. Claim 23 depends from claim
22.
Appeal 2008-004464
Application 10/456,210

7
As found above, we find that Direen fails to teach or suggest "the data
message including a plurality of words, each word including more bytes than
the current CRC value," as recited in independent claim 22. The absence of
the foregoing limitation from Direen in the independent claim on appeal, i.e.,
claim 22, overcomes the Examiner’s finding of obviousness for dependent
claim 23. Further, we find that the Examiner does not rely on Garrabrant to
remedy the deficiencies of Direen. Therefore, we reverse the Examiner's
obviousness rejection of claim 23.

DECISION
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 22-25 is reversed.
REVERSED

msc

KATHY MANKE
AVAGO TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED
4380 ZIEGLER ROAD
FORT COLLINS, CO 80525