Amazon Technologies, Inc.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jul 29, 2021

2020003088 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 29, 2021)

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.
14/622,661 02/13/2015 David James Borland AMZ2P034/PM9617-US 8123
136609 7590 07/29/2021
Weaver Austin Villeneuve & Sampson LLP - AMZ
P.O. BOX 70250
OAKLAND, CA 94612-0250
EXAMINER
LEE, CHUN KUAN
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2181
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/29/2021 ELECTRONIC
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.
Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the
following e-mail address(es):
USPTO@wavsip.com
eofficeaction@appcoll.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte DAVID JAMES BORLAND and
MARK BRADLEY DAVIS
Appeal 2020-003088
Application 14/622,661
Technology Center 2100
Before JASON V. MORGAN, HUNG H. BUI, and
MICHAEL J. ENGLE, Administrative Patent Judges.
ENGLE, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 1, 3–8, 11–15, and 17–24, which are all of the claims
pending in the application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.

1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37
C.F.R. § 1.42(a). Appellant identifies Amazon Technologies, Inc. as the real
party in interest. Appeal Br. 3.
Appeal 2020-003088
Application 14/622,661

2
TECHNOLOGY
The application relates to a system on a chip (SoC) with a plurality of
modes to provide networking services only, compute services only, or both
concurrently. Spec. Abstract.
ILLUSTRATIVE CLAIM
Claim 1 is illustrative and reproduced below with certain disputed
limitations emphasized:
1. A system on a chip (SoC) comprising:
a management compute subsystem comprising a
processor, memory and a network interface, wherein the network
interface is configured to connect to a remote entity over a
network and wherein the management compute subsystem is
configured to execute instructions from the memory on the
processor to operate the SoC in one of a plurality of modes;
a network compute subsystem comprising a first set of
processing cores, caches, and memory controllers and configured
to execute instructions for managing network traffic for a host
system external to the SoC, the managing of the network traffic
for the host system including monitoring and shaping of network
traffic between the host system and a client computer, and the
first set of processing cores, caches, and memory controllers
forming a first set of resources that are pre-allocated to the
network compute subsystem; and
a server compute subsystem comprising a second set of
processing cores, caches, and memory controllers and configured
to execute instructions for providing compute services to the
client computer, the second set of processing cores, caches, and
memory controllers forming a second set of resources that are
separate from the first set of resources and pre-allocated to the
server compute subsystem,
Appeal 2020-003088
Application 14/622,661

3
wherein
in a first mode, the SoC is configured by the
management compute subsystem to operate the network
compute subsystem,
in a second mode, the SoC is configured by the
management compute subsystem to operate the server
compute subsystem,
in a third mode, the SoC is configured by the
management compute subsystem to operate the network
compute subsystem and the server compute subsystem
concurrently, with the network compute subsystem being
configured to manage network traffic for the host system
and manage network traffic for the server compute
subsystem,
in the first mode, the management compute
subsystem prevents the server compute subsystem from
providing the compute services by deactivating or
repurposing the second set of processing cores, caches,
and memory controllers, and
in the second mode, the management compute
subsystem prevents the network compute subsystem from
managing the network traffic for the host system by
deactivating or repurposing the first set of processing
cores, caches, and memory controllers.
REFERENCES
The Examiner relies on the following references as prior art:
Name Number Date
Davis US 2016/0154760 A9 June 2, 2016
Georgiou US 7,412,588 B2 Aug. 12, 2008
Wang US 2011/0295967 A1 Dec. 1, 2011
Yun US 2013/0268706 A1 Oct. 10, 2013
Appeal 2020-003088
Application 14/622,661

4
REJECTION
The Examiner rejects claims 1, 3–8, 11–15, and 17–24 under 35
U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over Davis, Georgiou, Yun, and Wang. Final
Act. 3–17.
ANALYSIS
Claim 1 recites a “network compute subsystem” and a “server
compute subsystem,” each of which comprises a separate “set of processing
cores, caches, and memory controllers” that are “pre-allocated” to that
particular subsystem.
Appellant argues that “there is no specific or identifiable subsystem in
Davis responsible for providing the functions associated with the network
compute subsystem or the functions associated with the server compute
subsystem.” Appeal Br. 11. Instead, the components merely execute
whichever instructions they are given, regardless of whether those are
network compute or server compute instructions. Id.
The Examiner finds that “resources are pre-allocated when
instructions are executed to carry out the network compute subsystem and
server compute subsystem, as these resources can later be re-configured for
other function[s] base[d] on execution of other instruction[s].” Ans. 20.
According to the Examiner,
one of ordinary skilled in the art can also consider resources used
for carrying out the network compute subsystem operation and
server compute subsystem operation are “pre-allocated” because
prior to the execution of the instructions for carrying out the
network compute subsystem operation and server compute
subsystem operation, the resources are intended to and capable
of carrying out the network compute subsystem operation and
server compute subsystem operation.
Appeal 2020-003088
Application 14/622,661

5
Ans. 20.
However, we agree with Appellant that the Examiner fails to address
“the distinction between allocating resources . . . and pre-allocating
resources.” Reply Br. 3. Although the Specification does not appear to use
the term “pre-allocated,” it does disclose that in some embodiments, “each
compute subsystem can have fixed allocation of resources.” Spec. ¶ 32; see
also id. ¶¶ 30 (“once a SoC is fabricated with a certain configuration, the
number and types of processing and memory resources may be fixed for
each compute subsystem”), 51–52 (“In some embodiments, allocation of the
processing and memory resources for the [network / server] compute
subsystem [104 / 106] may be fixed,” such as “after power on reset”). A
fixed allocation is one example of pre-allocating resources in advance of
their usage. In contrast, merely running a task on any available processor
core at the time of execution may be allocating resources, but it is not pre-
allocating such resources.
The Examiner further determines that “a user could have program[ed]
the SOC with instructions so that the set of resources for the network
compute subsystem operation is separate from the set of resources for the
server compute subsystem operation.” Ans. 21 (emphasis added). However,
the courts have explained that “obviousness concerns whether a skilled
artisan not only could have made but would have been motivated to make the
combinations or modifications of prior art to arrive at the claimed
invention.” Belden Inc. v. Berk-Tek LLC, 805 F.3d 1064, 1073 (Fed. Cir.
2015). Here, the Examiner has given no reason or explanation why a person
of ordinary skill would have been motivated to program separate resources
for the network compute subsystem and server compute subsystem.
Appeal 2020-003088
Application 14/622,661

6
Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1,
3–8, 11–15, and 17–24.
OUTCOME
The following table summarizes the outcome of the rejection:
Claim(s)
Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1, 3–8, 11–15,
17–24
103 Davis, Georgiou,
Yun, Wang
1, 3–8, 11–15,
17–24
REVERSED