Ex Parte Petty

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Aug 24, 2012

11445064 (B.P.A.I. Aug. 24, 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.
11/445,064 06/01/2006 John Stewart Petty JR. 4015-5455/ P21696-US1 7175
24112 7590 08/27/2012
COATS & BENNETT, PLLC
1400 Crescent Green, Suite 300
Cary, NC 27518
EXAMINER
VU, TRISHA U
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2111
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/27/2012 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 JOHN STEWART PETTY JR.
____________________

Appeal 2010-004571
Application 11/445,064
Technology Center 2100
____________________

Before ALLEN R. MacDONALD, MICHAEL J. STRAUSS, and
JOHN G. NEW, Administrative Patent Judges.

MacDONALD, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2010-004571
Application 11/445,064

2
STATEMENT OF CASE
Introduction
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a final rejection of
claims 1-26. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
Exemplary Claim
Exemplary independent claim 1 under appeal reads as follows:
1. A method of resource arbitration diagnostic processing
comprising:
detecting arbitration events for two or more entities having
arbitrated access to a shared resource; and
maintaining a chronological memory trace of the arbitration
events.

Rejections on Appeal 1
1. The Examiner rejected claims 1-20 and 22-26 under
35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being anticipated by Bloks (US 7,093,256 B2).
2. The Examiner rejected dependent claim 21 as being
unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over the combination of Bloks
and Nomura (US 7,148,532 B2).
Appellant’s Contentions
1. Appellant contends that the Examiner erred in rejecting
independent claims 1 and 10 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) because
“Bloks does not teach ‘maintaining a chronological memory trace
of arbitration events.’ ” (App. Br. 6) (bolding and italics omitted).

1 Separate patentability is not argued for claim 21. Except for our ultimate
decision, this claim is not discussed further herein.
Appeal 2010-004571
Application 11/445,064

3
2. Appellant contends that the Examiner erred in rejecting
independent claim 22 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) because “Bloks
does not teach an ‘arbitration diagnostic method.’ ” (App. Br. 11)
(bolding and italics omitted).

Issues on Appeal
Whether the Examiner has erred in rejecting claims 1, 10, and
22 as being anticipated because Bloks fails to describe maintaining a
chronological memory trace of arbitration events?

ANALYSIS
Appellant presents several arguments as to why the Examiner has
erred. (App. Br. 6-11). We agree with the Appellant’s above contentions.
Particularly, we conclude that the Examiner has erred in finding that
Bloks describes “maintaining a chronological memory trace of arbitration
events” as required by claims 1 and 10. Also, we conclude that the
Examiner has erred in finding that Bloks describes an “arbitration diagnostic
method” comprising tracking delay times as required by claim 22.
Therefore, Appellant has established that the Examiner erred with
respect to the rejections of claims 1-26.
Appeal 2010-004571
Application 11/445,064

4

CONCLUSIONS
(1) Appellant has established that the Examiner erred in rejecting
claims 1-20 and 22-26 as being anticipated under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e).
(2) Appellant has established that the Examiner erred in rejecting
claim 21 as being unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
(3) On this record, claims 1-26 have not been shown to be
unpatentable.

DECISION
The Examiner’s rejections of claims 1-26 are reversed.

REVERSED

msc