Ex Parte Gao et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 28, 2017

11531313 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 28, 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.
11/531,313 09/13/2006 Yaoqing Gao CA920060047US1 1024
46320 7590
CRGO LAW
STEVEN M. GREENBERG
7900 Glades Road
SUITE 520
BOCA RATON, EL 33434
EXAMINER
SWIFT, CHARLES M
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2196
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/02/2017 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):
docketing@crgolaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte YAOQING GAO, GHEORGHE C. CASCAVAL, ALAN H.
KIELSTRA, ROBERT B. TREMAINE, MICHAEL E. WAZLOWSKI,
and LIXIN ZHANG
Appeal 2016-002554
Application 11/531,313
Technology Center 2100
Before JEAN R. HOMERE, JEFFREY S. SMITH, and CATHERINE
SHIANG, Administrative Patent Judges.
SMITH, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON REQUEST FOR REHEARING
Appeal 2016-002554
Application 11/531,313
Appellants filed a Request for Rehearing1 under 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.52(a)(1) (“Request”) on Feb. 16, 2017, for reconsideration of our
Decision mailed Dec. 16, 2016 (“Decision”). The Decision affirmed the
Examiner’s rejections of claims 1—40. We reconsider our decision in light of
Appellants’ Request for Rehearing, but we decline to change the decision.
We find Appellants’ arguments unpersuasive for the reasons given in
our prior Decision. As we previously held, we agree with the Examiner’s
findings that (1) Yang anticipates claims 1—4, 6, 7, 10-13, 15, 16, 18—21,
23—27, and 29-40; (2) claims 5, 9, 14, 17, 22, and 28 are obvious over Yang
and Archambault for the reasons given in the Final Rejection and
Examiner’s Answer. Decision 3. We highlight the following for emphasis.
Appellants contend:
1. The definition of the word “request” is different than the definition
of the word “signal,” therefore, the “push request” as claimed is
different than the cache miss signal of Yang. Request 3—6.
2. The claim term “in response to the push request” is not disclosed
by Yang. Request 6—7.
Appellants’ contentions are restatements of arguments presented in
Appellants’ briefing as to alleged errors in the Examiner’s fact finding.
Appellants’ arguments were previously addressed by us in our Decision and
will be addressed only briefly here.
Regarding the first contention, we highlight that the label of “cache
miss signal” used by the Examiner does not change the underlying function
1 “The request for rehearing must state with particularity the points believed
to have been misapprehended or overlooked by the Board.”
37 C.F.R. §41.52(a)(1).
2
Appeal 2016-002554
Application 11/531,313
of the cache miss, namely, requesting main memory to push data into L2
cache, which describes a “push request” within the meaning of claim 1. We
further highlight that the Yang article does not use the term “signal,” but
rather, uses the term “request,” when describing a push model for fetching
data from lower levels of memory in response to a cache miss. See Yang,
Section 3 “The Push Model.”
Regarding the second contention, we highlight “in response to the
push request” is not recited in claim 1. Even so, Yang’s description of data
pushed from main memory to L2 cache occurs “in response to” the cache
miss. See Yang, Section 3.
We find Appellants’ restatements of arguments are directed to the
Examiner’s application of the references rather than to points believed to
have been misapprehended or overlooked by the Board. In our Decision, we
agreed with findings and conclusions made by the Examiner. Appellants
have failed to show any matter was misapprehended or overlooked by the
Board in rendering this Decision.
We decline to change our Decision.
CONCLUSION
In view of the foregoing discussion, we hear Appellants’ Request for
Rehearing to the extent of reconsidering our decision, but we deny
Appellants’ request with respect to making any change thereto.
REHEARING DENIED
3