Ex Parte Olarig et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Aug 6, 2012

10039010 (B.P.A.I. Aug. 6, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________________

Ex parte SOMPONG PAUL OLARIG
and PAMELA M. COOK
____________________

Appeal 2009-012988
Application 10/039,010
Technology Center 2100
____________________

Before ERIC S. FRAHM, KALYAN K. DESHPANDE, and DAVID M.
KOHUT, Administrative Patent Judges.

DESHPANDE, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2009-012988
Application 10/039,010

2
STATEMENT OF CASE
1

The Appellants seek review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of a non-final
rejection of claims 1-6, 8-11, 13, 16-18, 20-27, 29, and 32-48, the only
claims pending in the application on appeal. Claims 7, 12, 14, 15, 19, 28,
30, and 31 are cancelled. We have jurisdiction over the appeal pursuant to
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.
INVENTION
The Appellants invented a method and apparatus for supporting
interleaved read-write operations for multiple target devices in a multicast
computer environment. Specification ¶ 0004.
An understanding of the invention can be derived from a reading of
exemplary claim 1, which is reproduced below [bracketed matter and some
paragraphing added]:
1. A method for transacting between an initiator device and a
plurality of target devices, the method comprising:
[1] associating each of the plurality of target devices with a
single base address, wherein the same single base address is
associated with each of the plurality of target devices;
[2] sending a multicast transaction from the initiator device
to the plurality of target devices, wherein sending the multicast
transaction comprises sending a multicast transaction to the
single base address associated with each of the plurality of
target devices; and
[3] executing the transaction when the transaction is received
by the plurality of target devices according to the configuration
of the target devices.

1
Our decision will make reference to the Appellants’ Appeal Brief (“App.
Br.,” filed Sept. 22, 2008) and Reply Brief (“Reply Br.,” filed Feb. 13,
2009), and the Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.,” mailed Dec. 9, 2008), and Non-
Final Rejection (“Non-Final Rej.,” mailed Nov. 27, 2007).
Appeal 2009-012988
Application 10/039,010

3
REFERENCES
The Examiner relies on the following prior art:
Blaner
Guttag
Carmichael
Olarig
Leung
Gupta
US 5,737,575
US 5,761,726
US 5,864,712
US 6,230,225 B1
US 6,272,577 B1
US 6,405,286 B2
Apr. 7, 1998
Jun. 2, 1998
Jan. 26, 1999
May 8, 2001
Aug. 7, 2001
Jun. 11, 2002

REJECTIONS
Claims 1-6, 8-11, 13, 16-18, 20-23, 25-27, and 29 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. §103(a) as being unpatentable over Leung and Guttag.
Claim 24 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as being
unpatentable over Leung, Guttag, and Carmichael.
Claims 32 and 47 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as being
unpatentable over Leung, Guttag, and Blaner.
Claim 48 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as being
unpatentable over Leung, Guttag, Blaner, and Olarig.
Claims 33-38 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as being
unpatentable over Leung, Guttag, and Gupta.
Claims 39-44 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as being
unpatentable over Leung, Guttag, and Olarig.
Claims 45 and 46 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as being
unpatentable over Guttag, Gupta, Blaner, and Olarig.

Appeal 2009-012988
Application 10/039,010

4
ISSUE
The issue of whether the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1-6, 8-11,
13, 16-18, 20-27, 29, and 32-48 turns on whether the cited prior art teaches
or suggests “associating each of the plurality of target devices with a single
base address, wherein the same single base address is associated with each
of the plurality of target devices,” as set forth in claim 1 and as similarly
recited by the other independent claims.

ANALYSIS
The Appellants contend that the combination of Leung and Guttag
fails to teach or suggest “associating each of the plurality of target devices
with a single base address, wherein the same single base address is
associated with each of the plurality of target devices,” as recited by
limitation [1] of claim 1. App. Br. 14-19 and Reply Br. 2-3.
We agree with the Appellants. “Associating each of the plurality of
target devices with a single base address” requires that each target devices is
associated with the same base address. The Examiner appears to point to
both Leung and Guttag to describe this limitation. Ans. 4-5 and 22-23.
In the cited portion, Guttag describes that each processor has a
corresponding memory, where each memory has a fixed base address.
Guttag 172:47-60. Guttag further describes that each memory has a unique
addressable memory portion and has a corresponding base address within a
single memory address space. Guttag 5:36-41. However, Guttag fails to
describe that each processor or memory has a common or single base
address. While Guttag explicitly describes that each processor or memory
has a fixed base address, Guttag does not teach or suggest that each target
Appeal 2009-012988
Application 10/039,010

5
device is associated with the “same single base address” as required by
claim 1.
Leung, in the portions cited by the Examiner, describes memory
modules that are “equipped with independent address and command
decoders so that they function as independent units, each with their own base
address.” Leung 4:31-34. This suggests that each memory module is
associated with a different base address and as such Leung does not describe
that the same single base address is associated with each memory module.
Therefore, the combination of Leung and Guttag fails to describe
“associating each of the plurality of target devices with a single base
address, wherein the same single base address is associated with each of the
plurality of target devices.”
Independent claims 9, 16, 25, 32, 33, 36, and 47 similarly recite a
“single base address,” a “common base address,” or a “single base memory
address” associated with target devices. As such, we do not sustain the
rejection of these claims for the same reasons discussed supra in the analysis
of claim 1. Dependent claims 2-6, 8, 10, 11, 13, 17, 18, 20-24, 26, 27, 29,
34, 35, 37-46, and 48 incorporate this same subject matter and therefore we
do not sustain the rejection of these claims for the same reasons. Since this
issue is dispositive as to the rejections against these claims, we need not
reach the remaining arguments raised by the Appellants against these
rejections.

Appeal 2009-012988
Application 10/039,010

6

CONCLUSIONS
The Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1-6, 8-11, 13, 16-18, 20-27, 29,
and 32-48.

DECISION
To summarize, our decision is as follows.
 The rejection of claims 1-6, 8-11, 13, 16-18, 20-27, 29, and 32-48 is
not sustained.

REVERSED

ELD