Ex Parte Mehra et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Sep 11, 2012

09802021 (B.P.A.I. Sep. 11, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________________

Ex parte RAHUL MEHRA and BRENDAN LYNSKEY
____________________

Appeal 2011-003511
Application 09/802,021
Technology Center 2400
____________________

Before MAHSHID D. SAADAT, ERIC S. FRAHM, and JUSTIN BUSCH,
Administrative Patent Judges.

BUSCH, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal 2011-003511
Application 09/802,021

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of
claims 4-11, 13-15, 17, and 18. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
According to Appellants, the invention relates to a system and control
means for the storage and subsequent retrieval of data on a storage means.
See Abstract. Claim 18, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed
subject matter:
18. A receiver for digital data broadcast from a remote
location, said receiver comprising:
a storage means for selective storage of digital data
broadcast from a remote location therein, the data to be stored
including instruction data, block data, and paths for the data
being decoupled;
a control system for control of the storage means and
control of storage of data therein, the control system including a
single storage-instruction “first in first out” buffer being
capable of receiving instructions in a generic form;
a control processing unit for analyzing the digital data to
determine when it should be stored;
said control processing unit inserting instructions in
generic form into the single storage-instruction “first in first
out” buffer;
said instructions comprising:
(a) register read and write commands in a generic
form for the control of storage of the digital data in the
storage means;
(b) control system commands for automating the bulk
transfer of said digital data to and from said storage means;
and
wherein within the single storage-instruction first-in-first-
out buffer the control commands for automating the bulk
Appeal 2011-003511
Application 09/802,021

3
transfer of the digital data from the control system are
compatible and intermixable with the register read and write
commands.

Rejections
Claims 4-11, 13-15, 17, and 18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Schindler (US 5,995,155; November 30,
1999), Brightman (US Pub. 2006/0292292 A1; December 28, 2006 (parent
PCT filed May 7, 1999)), and Stoney (US 6,237,079 B1; May 22, 2001
(filed February 18, 1998)).

ISSUE
Appellants argue claims 4-11, 13-15, 17, and 18 as a group on the
basis of claim 18. (App. Br. 14). We treat claims 4-11, 13-15, and 17 as
standing or falling with representative claim 18. Appellants argue that the
combination of Schindler, Brightman, and Stoney does not teach or disclose
a single storage-instruction FIFO buffer receiving instructions in a generic
form, where the control commands are “compatible and intermixable” with
register read and write commands and both the control commands and the
register read and write commands are inserted into the same FIFO buffer as
claimed in independent claim 18. App. Br. 9-11. Therefore, the issue before
the Board is: Did the Examiner err in finding that the combination of
Schindler, Brightman, and Stoney teaches a single storage-instruction FIFO
buffer receiving instructions in a generic form, where the control commands
are “compatible and intermixable” with register read and write commands?

Appeal 2011-003511
Application 09/802,021

4
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellants’
contentions that the Examiner has erred. Further, we have reviewed the
Examiner’s response to each of the arguments and the Appellants’
arguments in the Reply Brief. We agree with Appellants.
Appellants argue that the combination of Schindler, Brightman, and
Stoney does not teach inserting different command types in a single buffer
or control commands being compatible and intermixable with register
read/write commands. App. Br. 9-11; Reply Br. 4. The Examiner states that
Brightman is relied upon for teaching the ability to intermix read/write
commands on the buffer. Ans. 13 (citing Brightman, ¶¶ 484-486).
Appellants point out that independent claim 18 is not claiming intermixing
read and write commands; rather, claim 18 is claiming the register read/write
commands being compatible and intermixable with control commands from
the control system. Reply Br. 4. Moreover, Appellants point out that
Brightman explicitly states that different command types are handled by
different FIFO buffers. Id.; See also, Brightman ¶ 485. We understand the
Examiner’s position to be based on interpreting “generic form” of
information as encompassing both command information and MPEG
information with respect to Schindler and intermixing read/write commands
in Brightman. See Ans. 13.
We find the Examiner’s construction of “generic form” to be
reasonable. Ans. 13. The only guidance provide by Appellants is that
“generic form allows any possible register read/write command to be sent
from/to the attached [storage means/ATA or ATAPI compatible device].”
Appeal 2011-003511
Application 09/802,021

5
Spec. pp. 4 and 6. Without any further explanation by Appellants as to how
“generic form” makes read/write instructions unique, we agree with the
Examiner that the combination of Schindler and Brightman teaches
receiving instructions in generic form into a FIFO buffer. Ans. 13-14.
However, we disagree with the Examiner that the discussion of
buffering read/write commands in Brightman would have suggested the
recited control commands being compatible and intermixable with the
read/write commands and having both command types inserted into a single
FIFO buffer. As stated by Appellants, Brightman discloses sending different
commands to different FIFO buffers depending on their type. App. Br. 10,
Reply Br. 4; see Brightman, ¶¶ 484-485. While inserting multiple command
types into a single FIFO buffer may exist in the prior art1, we do not see, nor
has the Examiner sufficiently shown, how any combination of the
disclosures of Schindler, Brightman, and Stoney teaches or discloses a FIFO
buffer wherein the control commands are compatible and intermixable with
the register read/write commands such that both command types are inserted
into a single FIFO buffer. Therefore, based on the record and the evidence
before us, and the arguments presented, we agree with Appellants that the
combination of Schindler, Brightman, and Stoney does not teach a single
storage-instruction FIFO containing control commands and register
read/write commands where the control commands are compatible and
intermixable with the register read/write commands.

1 See, e.g., U.S. Pat. 5,732,223 to Moore, a copy of which is provided with
this decision.
Appeal 2011-003511
Application 09/802,021

6
Dependent claims 4-11, 13-15, and 17 each ultimately depend from
claim 18 and therefore include the same limitations as independent claim 18.
Therefore, for the same reasons as identified above with respect to claim 18,
we agree with Appellants that the combination of Schindler, Brightman, and
Stoney does not teach or disclose all of the limitations of dependent claims
4-11, 13-15, and 17.

CONCLUSION
Based on the analysis above, we conclude that the Examiner erred in
rejecting claims 4-11, 13-15, 17, and 18 for obviousness under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a).

DECISION
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 4-11, 13-15, 17, and 18 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as being obvious over Schindler, Brightman, and Stoney is
reversed.

REVERSED

msc

9/11/2012, EAST Version: 3.0.1.1
9/11/2012, EAST Version: 3.0.1.1
9/11/2012, EAST Version: 3.0.1.1
9/11/2012, EAST Version: 3.0.1.1
9/11/2012, EAST Version: 3.0.1.1