Ex Parte Zilavy et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 18, 2013

11451260 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 18, 2013)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte DANIEL ZILAVY, JOHN A. MORRISON, and
RUSS W. HERRELL
____________________

Appeal 2010-010595
Application 11/451,260
Technology Center 2100
____________________

Before KALYAN K. DESHPANDE, JOHNNY A. KUMAR, and LARRY J.
HUME, Administrative Patent Judges.

DESHPANDE, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2010-010595
Application 11/451,260

2
STATEMENT OF CASE1
The Appellants seek review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of a final
rejection of claims 1-19, the only claims pending in the application on
appeal. We have jurisdiction over the appeal pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.

The Appellants’ invention is directed towards enabling the sharing of
data between two or more partitions in a partitionable computer system
without requiring network cabling to connect the partitions, and without
requiring modification of the operating system, the network stack, and
applications of each partition. Specification ¶ 0008.
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 system, comprising:
[1] a plurality of partitions, each partition comprising an
inter-partition data sharing logic comprising one or more
registers that receive data packets for sharing between
partitions;
[2] a storage accessible to the plurality of partitions; and
[3] a system fabric operably coupling each inter-partition
data sharing logic to the storage, thereby enabling sharing of
data between the partitions without a network connection.

REFERENCES
The Examiner relies on the following prior art:

1 Our decision will make reference to the Appellants’ Appeal Brief (“App.
Br.,” filed April 9, 2010) and Reply Brief (“Reply Br.,” filed July 13, 2010),
and the Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.,” mailed May 13, 2010), and Final
Rejection (“Final Rej.,” mailed December 11, 2009).
Appeal 2010-010595
Application 11/451,260

3
Kubala
Kingsbury
Fernandes
Shultz
Brown
US 2002/0129085 A1
US 2003/0061395 A1
US 2003/0236852 A1
US 2004/0083481 A1
US 2005/0232279 A1
Sep. 12, 2002
Mar. 27, 2003
Dec. 25, 2003
Apr. 29, 2004
Oct. 20, 2005

REJECTIONS2
Claims 1-5 and 7-9 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §102(b) as being
anticipated by Kubala.
Claims 6 and 10 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as being
unpatentable over Kubala and Fernandes.
Claims 11 and 12 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as being
unpatentable over Kubala and Brown.
Claims 13-18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as being
unpatentable over Kubala, Brown, and Shultz.
Claim 19 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as being
unpatentable over Kubala, Brown, Shultz, and Kingsbury.

ISSUE
The issue of whether the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1-19 turns
on whether Kubala describes “each partition comprising an inter-partition
data sharing logic comprising one or more registers that receive data packets
for sharing between partitions,” as per claim 1, and the limitations argued in
support of claims 6, 10, 11, 12, and 13.

2 The Examiner has withdrawn the previously asserted rejection of claims 7-
10 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, and 35 U.S.C. § 112, second
paragraph.
Appeal 2010-010595
Application 11/451,260

4
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of the
Appellants’ contentions that the Examiner has erred.
We disagree with the Appellants’ conclusions. 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 in response to the Appellants’ Appeal Brief. We
concur with the conclusion reached by the Examiner. We highlight the
following arguments for emphasis.

Claims 1-5 and 7-9 rejected under 35 U.S.C. §102(b)
The Appellants contend that Kubala fails to describe “each partition
comprising an inter-partition data sharing logic comprising one or more
registers that receive data packets for sharing between partitions,” as per
claim 1. App. Br. 13-15 and Reply Br. 2-4. The Appellants specifically
argue that Kubala describes only a single data mover 821, whereas claim 1
requires that each partition comprises data sharing logic. Reply Br. 2-4
(citing Kubala Figs. 8-9).
We disagree with the Appellants. As found by the Examiner, Kubala
describes that a fabric connects each partition and the fabric includes a data
mover that comprises a source register. Ans. 14 (citing Kubala ¶¶ 0079 and
0083, and Fig. 4). Each partition 200A1 and 200B1 includes respective
fabrics 204A and 204B that connects to another fabric 205 for inter-partition
communications. Kubala Fig. 2. As such, we agree with the Examiner that
Kubala describes that each partition includes inter-partition data sharing
Appeal 2010-010595
Application 11/451,260

5
logic, where the data mover or data sharing logic includes registers for
receiving data packets.

Claims 6 and 10-19 rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103(a)
The Appellants present several arguments that the cited prior art fails
to teach or suggests the limitations of claims 6, 10, 11, 12, and 13. App. Br.
15-18 and Reply Br. 4-5. The Examiner responds that the cited prior art is
not deficient and teaches or suggests the limitations of claims 6, 10, 11, 12,
and 13. Ans. 15-18. We agree with and accordingly adopt the
Examiner’s findings of fact and analysis, and reach the same legal
conclusions as in that response. Ans. 7-18.

CONCLUSIONS
The Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 1-19.

DECISION
To summarize, our decision is as follows.
 The rejection of claims 1-19 is sustained.

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) (2011).

AFFIRMED

tj