Appeal 2007-1959
Application 10/039,789
Leapfrog Enter., Inc. v. Fisher-Price, Inc., 485 F.3d 1157, 1161,
82 USPQ2d 1687, 1691 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (quoting KSR Int’l v. Teleflex, Inc.,
127 S. Ct. 1727, 1739, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 (2007)). “One of the ways in
which a patent’s subject matter can be proved obvious is by noting that there
existed at the time of invention a known problem for which there was an
obvious solution encompassed by the patent’s claims.” KSR, 127 S. Ct. at
1742, 82 USPQ2d at 1397.
ANALYSIS
Claim 1
The Examiner characterizes the library calls of Poulsen as the claimed
second program unit that includes a set of one or more instructions to
partition a parallel operation among a plurality of threads and the reference
to the privatizable storage object declarations as the third program unit
(Answer 17). The Examiner specifically argues that the library calls 260
and 270, which comprise operations that are partitioned among multiple
threads, are actually instructions to initialize parallel regions of the program
and reference the privatizable storage object declarations in block 220 (id.).
Appellants assert that the library calls of Poulsen do not partition a
reduction operation between threads, nor do they reference a third program
unit which is also translated from the first program unit (Br. 12-13).
According to Appellants, the privatizable storage object declarations
disclosed in Poulsen are not an encapsulation of a reduction operation (Br.
13). Appellants further argue the combinability of the references by stating
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013