Ex Parte Rajagopalan et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Aug 31, 2012

10731063 (B.P.A.I. Aug. 31, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________________

Ex parte ANAND RAJAGOPALAN, RADOSLAV DANILAK,
PAUL J. GYUGYI, ASHUTOSH K. JHA, THOMAS A. MAUFER,
SAMEER NANDA, and PAUL J. SIDENBLAD
____________________

Appeal 2010-003783
Application 10/731,063
Technology Center 2100
____________________

Before JAMESON LEE, JOSEPH F. RUGGIERO, and JUSTIN T. ARBES,
Administrative Patent Judges.

ARBES, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2010-003783
Application 10/731,063

2

STATEMENT OF CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a rejection of claims
1-6, 8-10, 21, 22, and 24-30, the only claims pending in the application on
appeal. Claims 7, 11-20, and 23 were cancelled. We have jurisdiction over
the appeal pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).1
We reverse.
The claims are directed to a system and method for uploading frame
data to system memory. Claim 1 is exemplary:
1. A system for uploading frame data to system memory,
the system comprising:
a CPU coupled to the system memory and configured to
execute an application program,
the CPU executing a Transmission Control Protocol
(TCP) stack which includes code to complete at least some TCP
processing;
a hardware subsystem preconfigured to process all
frames related to one or more connections delegated by the TCP
stack to produce frame data and to upload the frame data to a
user buffer in the system memory allocated to the application
program, if the user buffer is available, and to a legacy buffer in
a portion of the system memory that is not allocated to the
application program, if the user buffer is not available, wherein
frame data uploaded to the legacy buffer is copied from the
portion of the system memory that is not allocated to the
application program to the system memory that is allocated to
the application program; and

1 Our decision will make reference to Appellants’ Appeal Brief (“App. Br.,”
filed June 11, 2009) and Reply Brief (“Reply Br.,” filed November 30,
2009), and the Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.,” mailed September 28, 2009) and
Final Rejection (“Final Rej.,” mailed September 4, 2008).
Appeal 2010-003783
Application 10/731,063

3

the system memory including a connection table (CT)
storing data for all active connections with system including
delegated connections, reads and writes to the CT being made
directly through the hardware,
the hardware subsystem being further preconfigured to
request legacy processing by the TCP stack of the frames of the
delegated connections.

REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Boucher

Elzur

Adams
US 6,334,153 B2

US 6,629,125 B2

US 6,775,693 B1
Dec. 25, 2001

Sept. 30, 2003
(filed July 2, 2002)

Aug. 10, 2004
(filed Mar. 30, 2000)

REJECTIONS
Claims 1-3, 10, 29, and 30 were rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Boucher in view of Elzur. Ans. 2-5.
Claims 4-6, 8, 9, 21, 22, and 24-28 were rejected under 35 U.S.C. §
103(a) as being unpatentable over Boucher in view of Elzur and Adams.
Ans. 5-7.

ANALYSIS
I. Obviousness Rejection of Claims 1-3, 10, 29, and 30 (Boucher/Elzur)
Appellants argue that Boucher and Elzur do not suggest a hardware
subsystem preconfigured to “upload the frame data to a user buffer in the
Appeal 2010-003783
Application 10/731,063

4

system memory allocated to the application program, if the user buffer is
available, and to a legacy buffer in a portion of the system memory that is
not allocated to the application program, if the user buffer is not available,”
as recited in claim 1 and similarly recited in claim 10. App. Br. 11-12;
Reply Br. 2-4. Specifically, Appellants contend that memory regions 306
and 308 in memory buffer 304 in Elzur are both allocated to an application
program. App. Br. 11-12; Reply Br. 2. Thus, according to Appellants, Elzur
does not use a legacy buffer in a portion of memory that is “not allocated to
the application program.” App. Br. 11-12; Reply Br. 2.
The Examiner finds that memory region 306 in Elzur is an
“application portion” and memory region 308 is a “non-application portion”
of memory buffer 304. Ans. 7. The Examiner further finds that “[d]ata is
stored in the application portion unless there is a condition such as [an] out
of sequence packet in which case, the incoming data will be stored to [the]
‘non-application’ portion and then later moved to the ‘application portion’ of
the memory.” Ans. 7-8 (emphasis added). According to the Examiner,
“only the packets received in memory region 306” – not the packets stored
in memory region 308 – are “processed by the Application in question.”
Ans. 8.
Based on the record before us, we agree with Appellants. In Elzur,
incoming data packets are copied into a memory buffer 304 that is
“associated with [a particular] application.” Elzur, col. 5, ll. 1-7; col. 5, ll.
10-11 (“The operating system also associates each buffer with a particular
application.”); col. 5, ll. 37-39 (“The TCP or other protocol destination port
uniquely identifies the application that is to receive the data and thus,
identifies the appropriate buffer 304 for the packet data.”). Thus, memory
Appeal 2010-003783
Application 10/731,063

5

buffer 304 is allocated to an application program. Figure 7 further shows
that each memory buffer 304 contains two regions: region 306 and region
308. Elzur, col. 4, l. 66-col. 5, l. 14; col. 9, ll. 36-56; Fig. 7. Because the
entire memory buffer 304 is allocated to an application program, each of the
constituent regions is also allocated to the application program. We
therefore conclude that the Examiner erred in finding memory region 308 to
be a “non-application portion” of memory.
Further, we see no support in Elzur (and the Examiner has not pointed
to any) for the Examiner’s assertion that data stored in memory region 308 is
only temporary and must be “moved” to memory region 306 to be
processed. See Ans. 7-8. To the contrary, Elzur indicates that memory
region 308 is reserved for “missing packet data” in the case where memory
buffer 304 stores data in “sequential packets one after the other” but the
packets are received out of order. Elzur, col. 9, ll. 36-56. The size of the
reserved region is dependent on the numbers of adjacent packets in the
sequence (e.g., one byte in the case where packet number “267” is received
immediately after packet number “265”). Elzur, col. 9, ll. 47-56. Elzur
therefore uses data stored in the entire memory buffer 304 (region 306 and
region 308), and does not indicate that data must first be “moved” from
region 308 to region 306.
We are persuaded that the Examiner erred in finding that Elzur
teaches a hardware subsystem preconfigured to “upload the frame data to a
user buffer in the system memory allocated to the application program, if the
user buffer is available, and to a legacy buffer in a portion of the system
memory that is not allocated to the application program, if the user buffer is
not available,” as recited in independent claim 1 and similarly recited in
Appeal 2010-003783
Application 10/731,063

6

independent claim 10. Further, the Examiner has not provided any basis or
reason why the limitation would be obvious based on the other cited
references (Boucher and Adams). See Ans. 5-7. Accordingly, we do not
sustain the Examiner’s rejection of independent claims 1 and 10, as well as
dependent claims 2, 3, 29, and 30.

II. Obviousness Rejection of Claims 4-6, 8, 9, 21, 22, and 24-28
(Boucher/Elzur/Adams)
For the reasons discussed above, we agree with Appellants that
Boucher and Elzur do not suggest a hardware subsystem preconfigured to
“upload the frame data to a user buffer in the system memory allocated to
the application program, if the user buffer is available, and to a legacy buffer
in a portion of the system memory that is not allocated to the application
program, if the user buffer is not available,” as recited in independent claim
1 and similarly recited in independent claim 10. Further, the Examiner has
not provided any basis or reason why the limitation would be obvious based
on Adams. See Ans. 5-7. Accordingly, based on the record before us, we do
not sustain the obviousness rejection of dependent claims 4-6, 8, 9, 21, 22,
and 24-28.

CONCLUSION
Appellants have persuaded us of error in the Examiner’s decision to
reject claims 1-6, 8-10, 21, 22, and 24-30 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).

Appeal 2010-003783
Application 10/731,063

7

DECISION
For the above reasons, the rejections of claims 1-6, 8-10, 21, 22, and
24-30 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) are reversed.

REVERSED

babc