Ex Parte Hepkin et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 30, 2016

13454269 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 30, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/454,269 04/24/2012
75916 7590 04/01/2016
IBM AUS IPLA W (GLF)
c/o Garg Law Firm, PLLC
4521 Copper Mountain Lane
Richardson, TX 75082
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
David Alan Hepkin
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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
AUS920090183US2 1756
EXAMINER
TRAN, DENISE
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2138
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
04/01/2016 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):
dpandya@garglaw.com
uspto@garglaw.com
garglaw@gmail.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte DAVID ALAN HEPKIN,
SATY A PRAKASH SHARMA,
SAURABHNATH SHARMA,
and RANDALL CRAIG SWANBERG
Appeal2014-006048
Application 13/454,269
Technology Center 2100
Before: ELENI MANTIS MERCADER, JAMES W. DEJMEK, and
SCOTT B. HOWARD, Administrative Patent Judges.
MANTIS MERCADER, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal2014-006048
Application 13/454,269
STATEMENT OF CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a rejection of claims
1-10. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
THE INVENTION
The claimed invention is directed to expanding memory size. A size
of a compressed memory pool to use with the memory to make the desired
size of the expanded memory available is computed. A representation of the
memory is configured, the representation of the memory appearing to be of a
size larger than the size of the memory, the representation of the memory
being the expanded memory, and the size of the representation being the size
of the expanded memory. The expanded memory is made available such
that the memory in the data processing system is usable by addressing the
expanded memory. See Abstract.
Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject
matter:
1. A computer implemented method for expanding memory
size, compnsmg:
receiving in a data processing system having a memory, a
desired size of an expanded memory;
receiving a first information about a workload in the data
processing system;
computing a size of a compressed memory pool to use
with the memory to make the desired size of the expanded
memory available;
configuring a representation of the memory, the
representation of the memory appearing to be of a size larger than
the size of the memory, the representation of the memory being
the expanded memory, and the size of the representation being
the size of the expanded memory; and
2
Appeal2014-006048
Application 13/454,269
making available the expanded memory such that the
memory in the data processing system is usable by addressing
the expanded memory.
REFERENCE
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
B. Abali et al., Memory Expansion Technology (MTX): Software
Support and Performance, IBM J. RES. & DEV. Vol. 45 No. 2, 287-301
(Mar. 2001) (hereinafter "Abali").
REJECTIONS
The Examiner made the following rejections:
1. Claims 1-10 stand provisionally rejected on the ground of
nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting.
2. Claims 1-8 and 10 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being
anticipated by Abali.
ISSUE
The pivotal issue is whether the Examiner erred in finding Abali
discloses the limitations of "receiving in a data processing system having a
memory, a desired size of an expanded memory" and "computing a size of a
compressed memory pool to use with the memory to make the desired size
of the expanded memory available," as recited in claim 1.
3
Appeal2014-006048
Application 13/454,269
ANALYSIS
1. Claims 1-10 provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory
obviousness-type double patenting
Appellants propose the rejection be held in abeyance until allowable
claims are identified (App. Br. 8). However, the application 12/611,190 was
allowed and issued on June 4, 2013. Accordingly, we sustain the
Examiner's rejection of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting of
claims 1-10.
2. Claims 1-8 and 10 stand rejected under 35 USC§ 102(b)
Appellants argue claim 1 specifically provides that there are two
portions of the expanded memory- the memory and the compressed
memory pool (App. Br. 11 ). Appellants argue that Figures 4 and 5 show
distinct compressed and uncompressed memory pools, which support this
recitation in claim 1 in direct opposition to Abali' s express prohibition on
such part1t10ning (App. Br. 11 ). Furthermore, according to Appellants,
claim 1 calls for computing a size of only one part of the expanded memory
- the compressed memory pool (App. Br. 11 ). Because Abali prohibits the
partitioning of the memory into compressed and uncompressed pools, Abali
cannot teach any size calculations for an (absent) partition (App. Br. 11).
Appellants argue because the entire memory of Abali is compressed, at best,
Abali' s disclosure can only teach a fixed compressed size of only the
compressed portion of the claimed expanded memory (App. Br. 11 ).
According to Appellants, Abali teaches compressing the entire available
memory, without having compressed and uncompressed partitions (App. Br.
12).
4
Appeal2014-006048
Application 13/454,269
Appellants further argue Abali teaches a memory size detection
routine detects the size of available memory (App. Br. 14). According to
Appellants, the routine reports twice the size of available memory to the
operating system (App. Br. 14). This teaching is insufficient to teach or
suggest "receiving ... a desired size of an expanded memory" feature as
claimed (App. Br. 14).
We are not persuaded by Appellants' arguments. Appellants'
arguments are not commensurate in scope with the claimed language
because claim 1 does not recite compressed and uncompressed memory
partitions (see claim 1 ). Rather, claim 1 recites, inter alia, "computing a size
of a compressed memory pool to use with the memory to make the desired
size of the expanded memory available." Accordingly, we agree with the
Examiner's finding that Abali discloses computing a size of a compressed
memory pool (i.e., free-page pool) to use with the physical memory to make
the desired size of the expanded memory available (i.e., twice amount of the
physical memory) (Ans. 9--11 ; Abali 2 91-92).
We are also not persuaded the Examiner erred in finding Abali
discloses "receiving ... a desired size of an expanded memory," as recited
in claim 1. The Examiner finds, and we agree, Abali discloses during boot
time the memory-size detection routine of the BIOS reports twice the
amount of physically-available memory to the OS (Ans. 23 (citing Abali,
291 )). Thus, the OS receives a report of a desired memory size (i.e., twice
the physically-available size). Appellants have not provided sufficient
argument or evidence to rebut the Examiner's findings.
5
Appeal2014-006048
Application 13/454,269
Appellants also argue the Examiner's rejection is conclusory and the
standard articulated in KSR reciting "[R]ejections on obviousness cannot be
sustained by mere conclusory statements; instead, there must be some
articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal
conclusion of obviousness," KSR Int'! Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398,
418 (2007), should apply to an anticipation rejection (App. Br. 15).
We are not persuaded by Appellants' argument. The Examiner made
findings addressing each limitation of the claim as found in the Answer and
Final Action. The articulated reasoning in KSR refers to a motivation
statement in combining references which is inapplicable in an anticipation
rejection.
Accordingly, we affirm the Examiner's rejection of claim 1 and
claims 2-8 and 10 which were not argued separately.
CONCLUSION
The Examiner did not err in finding Abali discloses the limitations of
"receiving in a data processing system having a memory, a desired size of an
expanded memory" and "computing a size of a compressed memory pool to
use with the memory to make the desired size of the expanded memory
available," as recited in claim 1.
DECISION
For the above reasons, the Examiner's rejection of claims 1-10 is
affirmed.
6
Appeal2014-006048
Application 13/454,269
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
7