Ex Parte Abali et al

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Mar 19, 2019

13891541 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Mar. 19, 2019)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/891,541 05/10/2013
47049 7590 03/19/2019
FERENCE & ASSOCIATES LLC
409 BROAD STREET
PITTSBURGH, PA 15143
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Bulent Abali
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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
YOR920120843US2(590.267C) 8149
EXAMINER
WARREN, TRACY A
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2131
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/19/2019 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 PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte BULENT ABALI, MOHAMMAD BANIKAZEMI, and
PARIJATDUBE
Appeal2018-005199
Application 13/891,541 1
Technology Center 2100
Before ROBERT E. NAPPI, JAMES W. DEJMEK, and
MATTHEW J. McNEILL, Administrative Patent Judges.
McNEILL, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
rejection of claims 1, 4, 10, 11, 13, 15-18, and 20-23, which are all the
claims pending in this application. Claims 2, 3, 5-9, 12, 14, 19, and 24 are
canceled. App. Br. 27-31. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We affirm.
1 Appellants identify the Applicant, International Business Machines
Corporation, as the real party in interest. App. Br. 3.
Appeal2018-005199
Application 13/891,541
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
Appellants' application relates to techniques for cache line
replacement in a computer memory system. Spec. ,r 2. Claim 1 is
illustrative of the appealed subject matter and reads as follows:
1. An apparatus comprising:
at least one processor; and
a non-transitory computer readable storage medium
having computer readable program code embodied therewith
and executable by the at least one processor, the computer
readable program code comprising:
computer readable program code configured to,
responsive to a request for data and a miss within a set of
associative caches comprising a tag cache, retrieve the data
from memory;
computer readable program code configured to access the
tag cache to identify data entries contained in the tag cache;
computer readable program code configured to, based
upon the data entries contained in the tag cache, identify a data
entry for replacement in the primary cache, wherein the
replacement policy for determining the data entry for
replacement in the primary cache is not stored in the primary
cache;
wherein the identifying comprises determining if all of
the data entries included in the tag cache are also included in
the primary cache, wherein the identifying comprises
comparing each of the data entries of the tag cache to each of
the data entries of the primary cache;
based on the determining, if all data entries included in
the tag cache are also included in the primary cache, identifying
a data entry in the primary cache for replacement by identifying
at least one least recently used data entry in the tag cache and
designating a data entry in the primary cache corresponding to
one of the identified at least one recently used data entries for
replacement;
2
Appeal2018-005199
Application 13/891,541
based on the determining, if all data entries included in
the tag cache are not also included in the primary cache,
identifying a data entry in the primary cache for replacement by
identifying a data entry of the primary cache that is not present
in the tag cache;
wherein the size of the primary cache is independent
from the size of the tag cache and the primary cache is
independent from the tag cache; and
computer readable program code configured to,
responsive to a data entry for replacement in the primary cache,
replace the data entry in the primary cache with the data from
memory.
The Examiner's Rejections
Claims 1, 4, 11, 13, 15-18, and 20-23 stand provisionally rejected on
the ground of non-statutory double patenting as unpatentable over claims 1,
4, 22, and 24-27 of co-pending Application No. 13/849,775. Final Act. 5-9.
Claims 1, 4, 10, 11, 13, 15, 20, and 23 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Mounes-Toussi (US 6,098,152; Aug. 1,
2000) and Chou (US 5,813,031; Sept. 22, 1998). Final Act. 10-17.
Claims 16-18, 21, and 22 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Mounes-Toussi, Chou, and Wang et al., Minimizing
Area Cost of On-Chip Cache Memories by Caching Address Tags, IEEE
Transactions on Computers, 1187-1201, vol. 46, no. 11 (1997). Final
Act. 17-20.
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner's rejections in light of Appellants'
contentions that the Examiner has erred. We disagree with Appellants'
contentions. Except as noted below, 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
3
Appeal2018-005199
Application 13/891,541
Answer in response to Appellants' Appeal Brief. We concur with the
conclusions reached by the Examiner. We highlight the following additional
points.
Objection to Drawings
The Examiner objects to the drawings under 37 C.F.R. § 1.83(a) for
failing to show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Final
Act. 2-3. Appellants argue the objection is in error. App. Br. 16-17.
The Board normally only considers matters affecting the merits of the
invention, i.e., rejections of claims. See 37 C.F .R. § 41.31 ( c) (2011 ).
Matters not affecting the merits of the invention, such as objections to the
claims, Specification, or drawings, or allegations of procedural errors by the
Examiner (e.g., failure to designate a new ground of rejection as such), are to
be raised by petition to the Director or to the PTO official to whom the
Director has delegated the authority to determine the petition. See 37 C.F.R.
§§ 1.181-183; see also MPEP §§ 1002, 1207.03 (IV) (8th Ed., Rev. 8, July
2010). Accordingly, we decline to reach the Examiner's objection to the
drawings.
Non-statutory Double Patenting
Appellants argue the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1, 4, 11, 13,
15-18, and 20-23 on the ground of non-statutory obviousness-type double
patenting over certain claims of co-pending Application No. 13/849,775
because the co-pending claims are a different statutory class than the
pending claims. App. Br. 17.
Appellants have not persuaded us of Examiner error. As explained by
the Examiner in the Answer:
A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where
the claims at issue are not identical, but at least one examined
4
Appeal2018-005199
Application 13/891,541
application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference
claim( s) because the examined application claim is either
anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference
claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d
1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29
USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Langi, 759 F.2d 887,225
USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d
937,214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438,
164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); and In re Thorington, 418 F.2d
528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
Although the claims at issue in the instant application are
not identical to the claims in the co-pending application, they
are not patentably distinct from each other because [it] would
be obvious that the method claimed apparatus and computer
program product claimed in Application No. 13/849,775 would
be used by the apparatus and computer program product
claimed in the instant application.
Ans. 19-20.
For these reasons, we sustain the provisional non-statutory
obviousness-type double patenting rejection of claims 1, 4, 11, 13, 15-18,
and 20-23.
Obviousness
Appellants argue the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1 as
unpatentable over Mounes-Toussi and Chou. App. Br. 17-24. In particular,
Appellants argue the Examiner has failed to establish a sufficient motivation
for an ordinarily skilled artisan to combine Mounes-Toussi and Chou. Id. at
17-20. According to Appellants, the Examiner's motivation statement is
conclusory and irrelevant to the current application because the stated
motivation does not address the problem Appellants were trying to solve.
Id. at 17-18.
Appellants have not persuaded us of Examiner error. The Examiner
finds an ordinarily skilled artisan would have combined Moun es-T oussi and
5
Appeal2018-005199
Application 13/891,541
Chou to "implement the method of determining the cache entry to replace in
a cache directory (i.e., tag cache) that is smaller, faster, and located on a
separate chip tha[ n] the primary cache." Final Act. 13. The Examiner finds
such a combination would "enable faster lookups in the cache directory."
Id. Appellants' argument that this motivation is conclusory is unpersuasive
because Appellants fail to identify an error in the Examiner's reasoning.
Instead, we find the Examiner's expressed motivation to combine the
references is based on rational underpinnings-namely to enable faster
lookups in the cache directory.
Appellants' argument that this motivation differs from the problem
Appellants were trying to solve is also unpersuasive. "As long as some
motivation or suggestion to combine the references is provided by the prior
art taken as a whole, the law does not require that the references be
combined for the reasons contemplated by the inventor." In re Beattie, 974
F.2d 1309, 1312 (Fed. Cir. 1992).
Appellants also argue neither Mounes-Toussi nor Chou explicitly
supports the Examiner's conclusion that it would have been obvious to
combine the references to "implement the method of determining the cache
entry to replace in a cache directory (i.e., tag cache) that is smaller, faster,
and located on a separate chip tha[n] the primary cache." App. Br. 19
(quoting Final Act. 13). Appellants also argue the references do not support
the Examiner's conclusion that such a combination would "enable faster
lookups in the cache directory." Id. at 19 (quoting Final Act. 13).
Appellants have not persuaded us of Examiner error. Consistent with
the guidelines stated in KSR Int 'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007),
the Examiner identifies improvements made by the combination to Mounes-
T oussi' s cache directory lookup. Therefore, the Examiner has articulated
6
Appeal2018-005199
Application 13/891,541
how the claimed features are suggested by the proposed combination of the
reference teachings with some rational underpinning. See KSR, 550 U.S. at
418.
Appellants also argue the Examiner erred because the combination of
Mounes-Toussi and Chou does not teach or suggest "wherein replacement
policy information for determining the replacement entry in the primary
cache is not stored in the primary cache," as recited in claim 1. App. Br. 20-
24. In particular, Appellants argue Mounes-Toussi teaches MRU state 214
stores the last used block in a cache directory, not a replacement policy. Id.
at 21.
Appellants have not persuaded us of Examiner error. The Examiner
finds, and we agree, MRU state 214 is used in combination with other
information to determine the cache block for replacement. Final Act. 11
( citing Mounes-Toussi Fig. 2B, 5:33-52). Indeed, Mounes-Toussi
analogizes the use of MRU state 214 to determine which cache block to
replace with a common replacement policy based on the least recently used
cache block. See Mounes-Toussi 5:53-6: 17. Thus, we agree with the
Examiner that MRU state 214 comprises a "replacement policy" as claimed.
Appellants' arguments that Mounes-Toussi's main memory drives the
replacement policy (App. Br. 21-22) and that Chou does not teach a
replacement policy that is not stored in the primary cache (id. at 23-24) are
both unpersuasive because Mounes-Toussi's MRU state 214, which is not
stored in the primary cache, teaches the claimed "replacement policy."
Appellants also argue that even if MRU state 214 is a replacement
policy, MRU state 214 is stored in cache directory 210, which is not a cache,
and therefore Mounes-Toussi does not teach the claimed limitations. App.
Br. 21. Appellants have not persuaded us of Examiner error for two reasons.
7
Appeal2018-005199
Application 13/891,541
First, claim 1 recites the "replacement policy" is "not stored in the primary
cache," but does not recite that it is stored in a cache. Accordingly,
Appellants' argument is not commensurate with the scope of the claims.
Second, the Examiner finds, and we agree, cache directory 210 is equivalent
to a tag cache. Ans. 22. Appellants' Specification supports this
interpretation of cache directory 210, which performs the same functions as
the tag cache in the same manner described in the Specification. See Spec.
,r,r 15-16. Appellants do not rebut this finding in the Reply Brief.
For these reasons, we sustain the rejection of independent claim 1 as
unpatentable over Mounes-Toussi and Chou. We also sustain the rejection
of independent claim 11, for which Appellants rely on the same arguments.
See App. Br. 17-24. We also sustain the rejections of dependent claims 4,
10, 13, 15-18, and 20-23, for which Appellants offer no separate arguments.
See id.
DECISION
We affirm the decision of the Examiner rejecting claims 1, 4, 10, 11,
13, 15-18, and 20-23.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l )(iv). See
37 C.F.R. § 41.50(±).
AFFIRMED
8