Ex Parte Fischer et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Nov 18, 2014

11520910 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 18, 2014)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
_____________

Ex parte MATTHEW L. FISCHER and FRANCIS J. GINTHER
_____________

Appeal 2012-007047
Application 11/520,910
Technology Center 2100
______________

Before JOSEPH L. DIXON, JAMES R. HUGHES, and ERIC S. FRAHM,
Administrative Patent Judges.

FRAHM, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal 2012-007047
Application 11/520,910

2

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the final
rejection of claims 1, 3–9, 16–21, and 23–27. Claims 2, 10–15, and 22 have
been canceled. We reverse.
The Examiner has rejected (i) claims 1, 3–9, 16, 17, 21, and 23 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Khan (US 6,807,595 B2;
issued Oct. 19, 2004), Ren (US 2007/0186022 A1; published Aug. 9, 2007),
and Yang, Jian et al., A LINUX KERNEL WITH FIXED INTERRUPT LATENCY FOR
EMBEDDED REAL-TIME SYSTEM, IEEE, pp. 1–8 (2005) (hereinafter, “Yang”);
(ii) claims 18–20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Khan,
Ren, Yang, and Pezzini (US 2004/0177192 A1; published Sep. 9, 2004); and
(iii) claims 24–27 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over
Khan, Ren, Yang, Pezzini, and Gray (US 2006/0179196 A1; published Aug.
10, 2006).
We have reviewed Appellants’ arguments in the Briefs (App. Br. 8–17
and Reply Br. 1–6), the Examiner’s rejection (Ans. 4–11 and Final Rej. 2–
9), and the Examiner’s response (Ans. 11–13) to Appellants’ arguments.
The Examiner looks to Yang to teach measuring processing time for
servicing interrupts over a time interval. Ans. 5–6 and 11–13 (citing Yang,
Fig. 2; §§ 3.3.1 and 3.3.4). Yang discloses (i) three types of latency (e.g.,
the interrupt latency, preempt latency, and scheduler latency described in
§ 3.2), (ii) a scheduler which applies a scheduling algorithm over a constant
amount of time (described in § 3.3.2), and (iii) a priority protocol for tasks
(as shown in Fig. 2). However, we find no disclosure in Yang of collecting
data on interrupt servicing of a plurality of interrupts over a time interval by
measuring a processing time for servicing a plurality of interrupts over a
Appeal 2012-007047
Application 11/520,910

3

time interval as recited in independent claim 1, and as similarly recited in
remaining independent claims 16 and 21. Therefore, we concur with
Appellants’ arguments (App. Br. 8–16; Reply Br. 1–6) that the Examiner
erred in finding that Yang, and thus the combination of the references,
teaches or suggests collecting interrupt servicing data over a time interval by
“measuring a processing time for servicing each respective one of the
plurality of interrupts over the time interval,” as recited in independent claim
1 and as similarly recited in independent claims 16 and 21.1
Accordingly, we will not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of
independent claims 1, 16, and 21, as well as dependent claims 3–9, 17–20,
and 23–27 depending respectively therefrom.

CONCLUSION
Appellants have persuaded us of error in the Examiner’s decision to
reject claims 1, 3–9, 16–21, and 23–27.

DECISION
The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1, 3–9, 16–21, and 23–
27 is reversed.

REVERSED

1 We recognize that Appellants’ arguments present additional issues.
Because we were persuaded of error by this issue concerning measuring
processing time as set forth in claim 1 and similarly recited in claims 16 and
21, we do not reach the additional issues as the issue concerning the
measurement of processing time is dispositive of the appeal.

Appeal 2012-007047
Application 11/520,910

4

lv