Ex Parte Maitland et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

May 17, 2013

11588384 (P.T.A.B. May. 17, 2013)

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.
11/588,384 10/27/2006 Roger Maitland LUTZ 200767 1747
48116 7590 05/17/2013
FAY SHARPE/LUCENT
1228 Euclid Avenue, 5th Floor
The Halle Building
Cleveland, OH 44115-1843
EXAMINER
TAYLOR, BROOKE JAZMOND
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2181
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/17/2013 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 ROGER MAITLAND, HAL IRELAND, ERIC COMBES, and
KEVIN SMITH
____________________

Appeal 2010-012361
Application 11/588,384
Technology Center 2100
____________________

Before CARLA M. KRIVAK, THU A. DANG, and
DAVID M. KOHUT, Administrative Patent Judges.

DANG, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2010-012361
Application 11/588,384

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a Final Rejection of
claims 1-19 (App. Br. 4). We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.

A. INVENTION
According to Appellants, the invention relates to a direct memory
access device based on a timer system (Spec. 1, ll. 9-11).

B. ILLUSTRATIVE CLAIM
Claim 1 is exemplary:
1. A direct memory access device for timing events comprising:

an event calendar for storing an event in a linked list;

an expired event queue of a fixed size for storing an event that has
already expired from the event calendar;

a calendar scanner for automatically scanning the event calendar
without management by a central processing unit; and

an event mover for moving the event from the event calendar to the
expired event queue without management by the central processing unit.

C. REJECTION
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Delaney US Pat. Pub, 2005/0122962 A1 June 9, 2005
Oner US 6,981,074 B2 Dec. 27, 2005
Potter US 7,085,229 B1 Aug. 1, 2006
Appeal 2010-012361
Application 11/588,384

3

Claims 1, 3, 8, 10, 12, 14, 16, and 18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(e) as being anticipated by Potter.
Claims 2, 4, 9, 13, and 17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Potter and Delaney.
Claims 5-7, 11, 15, and 19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Potter, Delaney, and Oner.

II. ISSUE
The dispositive issue before us is whether the Examiner has erred in
finding that Potter teaches an event mover for “moving the event from the
event calendar to the expired event queue” (claim 1).

III. FINDINGS OF FACT
The following Findings of Fact (FF) are shown by a preponderance of
the evidence.
Potter
1. Potter discloses a scanning table 610, an event table 620, and a flow
bit table 660 (col. 12, ll. 36-38; Fig. 6A).
2. The scanning table 610 defines the rate at which a given expiration
time associated with an event is checked to determine if the expiration time
has been reached, wherein each entry of the table contains an index 616 that
is used to select a specific entry 621 in the event table and the scanning table
610 is indexed using a ‘wrap-around” counter 612 that is clocked by a clock
source 614 (col. 12, ll. 39-49).
3. The event table 620 is comprised of a plurality of event table entries
(col. 13, ll. 34-35; Fig. 6A), wherein each entry 621 is comprised of a
Appeal 2010-012361
Application 11/588,384

4
configuration field 622 and a group of one or more event fields 627 (col. 13,
ll. 37-39; Fig. 6C), and wherein an event field 627 comprises an expiration
time field 628 and an event status field 629 (col. 14, ll. 51-53; Fig. 6E).

IV. ANALYSIS
Claims 1, 3, 8, 10, 12, 14, 16, and 18
Appellants contend that “Potter does not describe two discrete
components, namely, an event calendar 14 and an expired event queue 16,”
and thus, “Potter cannot be said to include an event mover 18 that moves the
event from the event calendar 14 to the expired event queue 16” (App. Br.
9). Upon review of the record before us, we agree with Appellants. In
particular, although the Examiner finds that “Potter in fact discloses an event
calendar (event table 620…),” “an expired event queue (via expiration time
field 628 and event status field 629…),” and “an event mover (via flow bit
table and scheduling assist 340…)” (Ans. 15, emphasis omitted), we cannot
find any teaching or suggestion in the sections of Potter referenced by the
Examiner of an event mover for “moving the event from the event calendar
to the expired event queue” as required by claim 1.
In the sections of Potter cited by the Examiner, Potter discloses a
scanning table and an event table (FF 1). Each entry of the scanning table
contains an index that is used to select a specific entry in the event table (FF
2). Thus, we find no error in the Examiner’s finding that Potter discloses a
calendar scanner for automatically scanning the event calendar.
However, in Potter, the event table itself is comprised of a plurality of
event table entries, wherein each entry is comprised of event fields, and
wherein an event field comprises an expiration time field and an event status
Appeal 2010-012361
Application 11/588,384

5
field (FF 3). That is, in Potter, the expiration time field and event status
field are comprised within the event table.
Thus, although the Examiner finds that Potter’s event table 620
comprises an event calendar, Potter’s expiration time field 628 and event
status field 629 comprise an expired event queue, and Potter’s flow bit table
and scheduling assist 340 comprise an event mover (Ans. 15), we find no
teaching in the cited portions of Potter of the flow bit table and scheduling
assist being provided to move an event from the event table 620 to the
expiration time field 628 and event status field 629. That is, even if we were
to determine that the fields comprise the claimed expired event queue, there
is no teaching of moving an event from the event table to the fields that are
comprised within the same event table.
Accordingly, we find that the Examiner has failed to meet the initial
burden of proof required for the rejection pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 102 (b).
Therefore, we are constrained to reverse the Examiner’s rejection of
representative claim 1 over Potter. Independent claims 8, 12, and 16 recite
similar limitations and thus stand with claim 1. We thus reverse the
rejection of independent claims 8, 12, and 16, and claims 3, 10, 14, and 18
depending respectively therefrom over Potter. See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(1)(iv).
Claims 2, 4-7, 9, 11, 13, 15, 17 and 19
The Examiner does not explain how Delany or Oner would have
cured the deficiencies of Potter discussed above with respect to claims 1, 8,
12, and 16. Accordingly, we are also constrained to reverse the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 2, 4, 9, 13, and 17 depending respectively therefrom over
Appeal 2010-012361
Application 11/588,384

6
Potter in view of Delany, and claims 5-7, 11, 15, and 19 depending
respectively therefrom over Potter in view of Delany and Oner.
V. CONCLUSION AND DECISION
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 3, 8, 10, 12, 14, 16, and 18
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) and of claims 2, 4-7, 9, 11, 13, 15, 17, and 19
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) is reversed.

REVERSED

tkl