Ex Parte O et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jan 25, 2012

11092432 (B.P.A.I. Jan. 25, 2012)

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.
11/092,432 03/29/2005 Dennis M. O'Connor NUM.0053US 7066
21906 7590 01/25/2012
TROP, PRUNER & HU, P.C.
1616 S. VOSS ROAD, SUITE 750
HOUSTON, TX 77057-2631
EXAMINER
DARE, RYAN A
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2186
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
01/25/2012 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 BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte DENNIS M. O’CONNOR and STEPHEN J. STRAZDUS
____________

Appeal 2010-000617
Application 11/092,432
Technology Center 2100
____________

Before KRISTEN L. DROESCH, GREGORY J. GONSALVES, and
MICHAEL R. ZECHER, Administrative Patent Judges.

GONSALVES, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal 2010-000617
Application 11/092,432

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the rejection of
claims 1, 3, and 5-14. (App. Br. 5.) Claims 2, 4, and 15-23 were cancelled.
Id. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
The Invention
Exemplary independent claim 1 follows:
1. A method comprising:
providing a software and a hardware managed translation
lookaside buffer for one microprocessor; and
when a request for a translation from a linear to physical
address is received, checking the software managed translation
lookaside buffer to determine whether or not the translation is
resident therein before checking said hardware managed
translation lookaside buffer.

The Examiner rejected claims 1, 3, and 5-8 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over Volp (U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2005/0081020 A1) in
view of Garibay (U.S. Patent No. 5,963,984). (Ans. 3-5.)
The Examiner rejected claim 9 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Volp in view of Garibay and Willman (U.S. Patent No.
7,073,173 B1). (Ans. 5.)
The Examiner rejected claims 10-14 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Garibay and Willman. (Ans. 5-6.)

Appeal 2010-000617
Application 11/092,432

3
ISSUE
Appellants’ responses to the Examiner’s positions present the
following issue:
Did the Examiner establish that Garibay teaches or suggests
“checking the software managed translation lookaside buffer to determine
whether or not the translation is resident therein before checking said
hardware managed translation lookaside buffer,” as recited in claim 1, and as
similarly recited in claim 9?

ANALYSIS
Issue –Rejection of Claims 1, 3, and 5-14
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellants’
arguments (Appeal Brief) that the Examiner has erred. We disagree with
Appellants’ conclusion regarding the rejections of claims 1, 3, and 5-14. We
adopt as our own (1) the findings and reasons set forth by the Examiner in
the action from which this appeal is taken and (2) the reasons set forth by the
Examiner in the Examiner’s Answer (Ans. 3-9) in response to the
Appellants’ Appeal Brief. We concur with the conclusion reached by the
Examiner. But we highlight and address specific findings and arguments
regarding the claim phrase “software managed translation lookaside buffer.”
Appellants argue that each of the independent claims 1 and 10 is not
obvious because “Garibay cannot possibly teach looking at the software
managed TLB before looking at the hardware managed TLB because all he
has is hardware TLBs.” (App. Br. 10.) As explained by the Examiner,
however, the claim requires only that the TLB “be managed by a software
program.” (Ans. 7) In addition, the Examiner explains that a TLB in
Appeal 2010-000617
Application 11/092,432

4
Garibay is software managed even though it contains some hardware
because software controls the “programming [of] each entry [of the TLB]
with a linear address, a physical address, and block size….” (Id.)
In response, Appellants argue that programming the TLB with
addresses and a block size does not qualify as managing the TLB. (Reply
Br. 1.) But we must give a claim its broadest reasonable meaning consistent
with the Specification, In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
And under that standard, programming the TLB with addresses and block
sizes qualifies as a type of management of the TLB. Moreover, Appellants
do not set forth any reasons as to why this programming does not qualify as
managing the TLB. (See Reply Br. 1.)
For these reasons and for the reasons expressed in the Examiner’s
Answer (Ans. 3-9) we sustain the Examiner’s rejections of independent
claims 1 and 10 as well as the claims that depend therefrom because
Appellants did not set forth any separate patentability arguments for the
dependent claims. (See App. Br. 10-11.)

DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1, 3, and 5-14.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED

msc