Ex Parte Okawa et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Oct 23, 2012

10891796 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 23, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte YASUKICHI OKAWA, ROY MOONSEUK KIM,
PEICHUN PETER LIU, and THUONG QUANG TRUONG
____________________

Appeal 2010-002022
Application 10/891,796
Technology Center 2100
____________________

Before JOSEPH L. DIXON, THU A. DANG, and
CAROLYN D. THOMAS, Administrative Patent Judges.

DIXON, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2010-002022
Application 10/891,796
2
STATEMENT OF CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a rejection of claims 1
and 14-29. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.

The claims are directed to implementation and management of
moveable buffers in cache system. Claim 1, reproduced below, is
illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. A data processing system, comprising:

a cache system coupled to a memory;

a reload pointer, configured to point to a first reload
cache entry;

a victim pointer, configured to point to a first victim
cache entry;

a cache miss controller coupled to the cache system and
configured to identify a cache miss, and to load data from the
memory to the first reload cache entry in response to the cache
miss;

a write-back controller coupled to the cache system and
configured to write-back data from the first victim cache entry
to the memory in response to the cache miss;

a free entry calculator, configured to determine a second
reload cache entry in response to the cache miss, and to update
the reload pointer to point to the second reload cache entry; and

a victim entry calculator, configured to determine a
second victim cache entry in response to the cache miss, and to
update the victim entry pointer to point to the second victim
cache entry.
Appeal 2010-002022
Application 10/891,796
3

REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Arimilli
Van Doren
Tsern
US 6,145,057
US 6,249,846 B1
US 6,523,089 B2
Nov. 07, 2000
Jun. 19, 2001
Feb. 18, 2003

REJECTIONS
Claims 1, 15-17, 20-23, and 25-28 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Tsern and Van Doren.
Claims 14, 18, 19, 24 and 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Tsern and Van Doren as applied to claims 1, 20 and
25 above, and further in view of Arimilli.

OPINION

ANALYSIS
Appellants filed a supplement to the Appeal Brief to replace the
argument section of the Appeal Brief. Therefore, we will address the
arguments as set forth in the supplement to the Appeal Brief.
With respect to independent claim 1, Appellants contend that the
combination Tsern and Van Doren is incompatible with and teaches away
from the novel combination of elements recited in the claims. (App. Br. 4).
Appellants contend that "the Examiner's reasoning directly contradicts the
stated purpose of the invention[] and the elements as recited in the [c]laims."
(App. Br. 4). Appellants do not state what specific elements are contrary or
Appeal 2010-002022
Application 10/891,796
4
contradicted. Therefore, Appellants' argument is unpersuasive of error in the
Examiner's showing of obviousness of independent claim 1.
Appellants further contend that the combination of elements recited in
the claims avoids additional costs and complications of a separate data
buffer. (App. Br. 4). Appellants contend that the reload pointer and the
victim pointer point to locations in the cache, not to a separate buffer. (App.
Br. 5). Appellants contend that "the Van Doren system first writes the victim
data to a victim buffer, not to memory: 'a victim data buffer is loaded'" and
"Van Doren teaches an additional step that is not required in the novel
combinations recited in the Claims here." (App. Br. 5). We disagree with
Appellants and find no express limitation which is commensurate with
Appellants' "additional step" and "not to memory" arguments.
The Examiner maintains that Appellants' arguments are directed to
language not found in the claims and that the Appellants are arguing the
references individually rather than what the combination would have taught
or suggested to the skilled artisans. (Ans. 8-10). We agree with the
Examiner that Appellants' arguments are directed to limitations not expressly
found in the claim language.
Appellants further contend that "[o]ne of the most significant
differences between the [c]laims and the prior art is that the claimed
inventions do not require a victim/castout buffer." (App. Br. 6). We find
Appellants' argument is not commensurate in scope with the express
language of independent claim 1. Appellants did not file a reply brief to
respond to the Examiner's clarification in the responsive arguments that
Appellants' arguments were not commensurate in scope with the express
claim language. Therefore, Appellants' argument is unpersuasive of error in
the Examiner's showing of obviousness of independent claim 1.
Appeal 2010-002022
Application 10/891,796
5
Accordingly, we will sustain the rejection of independent claim 1 and
dependent claims 14-19.
Similarly, Appellants rely upon the same arguments advanced with
respect to independent claim 1 which we found unpersuasive of error in the
Examiner's showing of obviousness. Therefore, we will sustain the rejection
of independent claims 20 and 25 and their respective dependent claims 21-24
and 26-29.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
Appellants have not shown error in the Examiner's showing of
obviousness of independent claim 1.

DECISION
For the above reasons, the Examiner's obviousness rejections of
claims 1 and 14-29 are affirmed.

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) (2009).

AFFIRMED

peb