Ex Parte Accapadi et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 14, 2018

13015733 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 14, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/015,733 01/28/2011
124677 7590 08/16/2018
Russell Ng PLLC (IBM AUS)
8729 Shoal Creek Blvd., Suite 100
Austin, TX 78757
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Mathew Accapadi
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.
A US920100487US 1 3171
EXAMINER
TA, TRANGKHANH
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2137
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/16/2018 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):
s tephanie@russellnglaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte MATHEW ACCAPADI, ROBERT H. BELL JR.,
MEN-CHOW CHIANG, and HONG L. HUA
Appeal2018-001384 1
Application 13/015,733
Technology Center 2100
Before HUNG H. BUI, ADAM J. PYONIN, and DAVID J. CUTITTA II,
Administrative Patent Judges.
PYONIN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final
rejection of claims 11-16. Claims 1-10 and 18-21 have been canceled.
App. Br. 9-11 (Claims App'x). We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b ).
We REVERSE.
1 IBM Corporation is identified as the real party in interest. App. Br. 3.
Appeal2018-001384
Application 13/015,733
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
The Application is directed to "a method for preserving memory
affinity in a non-uniform memory access data processing system" (Spec.
1: 11-12) that "reduces or even eliminates memory affinity loss due to
process migration by restoring the proper memory affinity via dynamic page
migration" (id. at 7:12-14). Claim 11, the sole independent claim, is
reproduced below for reference ( emphasis added):
11. A computer readable device having a computer program
product for preserving memory affinity in a non-uniform
memory access data processing system, said computer readable
device comprising:
program code for, in response to a request for memory
access to a page within a first memory affinity domain,
determining whether or not said request is initiated by a remote
processor associated with a second memory affinity domain;
program code for, in response to a determination that said
request is initiated by a remote processor associated with a
second memory affinity domain, determining whether or not a
page migration tracking module associated with said first
memory affinity domain includes an entry for said remote
processor;
program code for, in response to a determination that said
first page migration tracking module includes an entry for said
remote processor, incrementing an access counter associated
with said entry within said page migration tracking module;
program code for determining whether or not there is a
page ID match with an entry within said page migration
tracking module;
program code for, in response to a determination that
there is no page ID match with any entry within said page
migration tracking module, selecting an entry within said page
migration tracking module and providing said entry with a new
page ID and a new memory affinity ID;
2
Appeal2018-001384
Application 13/015,733
program code for, in response to the determination that
there is a page ID match with an entry within said page
migration tracking module, determining whether or not there is
a memory affinity ID match with said entry having the page ID
field match;
program code for in response to a determination that
there is no memory affinity ID match, updating said entry with
the page ID field match with a new memory affinity ID;
program code for, in response to a determination that
there is a memory affinity ID match, incrementing an access
counter of said entry having the page ID field match;
program code for determining whether or not said access
counter has reached a predetermined threshold; and
program code for, in response to a determination that said
access counter has reached a predetermined threshold,
migrating said page from said first memory affinity domain to
said second memory affinity domain.
Examiner's Rejection
Claims 11-16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I02(b) as being
anticipated by Stuart Fiske (US 6,453,408 Bl; Sept. 17, 2002). Final Act. 3;
Advisory Act. 1.
ANALYSIS
In rejecting claim 1, the Examiner finds Stuart Fiske "appears to
explicitly recite ... a page ID match with an entry within said page
migration tracking module," because the reference discloses "page migration
processing," and "'a real page I[D] field' must exist and must be stored in
the processor mask #46 in order for the page migration [to] occur[].'" Final
Act. 8-9 ( emphasis omitted).
Appellants argue the Examiner's rejection of claim 1 is in error,
because none of the fields disclosed in Stuart Fiske "contain information that
3
Appeal2018-001384
Application 13/015,733
are identical or even similar to the claimed page ID and the claimed memory
affinity ID." App. Br. 5. Particularly, Appellants contend "Stuart Fiske is
tracking the type of requester processors and not page ID, as claimed." Id. at
6.
We agree with Appellants. The Examiner does not identify, nor do
we discern, any disclosure in Stuart Fiske of a data field tantamount to the
claimed "page ID." Instead, the Examiner repeatedly asserts the disclosed
memory pages "must" have page IDs. See, e.g., Ans. 3--4 ("in order to
migrate or to move a memory page, the requested memory page must be
identified, because there are more than one memory page in the system of
[F]igure 1; therefore, each memory page must have its own identification;
and the page's identification may be interpreted as 'page ID"'); see also
Ans. 5-8. The Examiner, however, provides no citation or evidence to
support the assertion. See In re Warner, 379 F.2d 1011, 1016 (CCPA 1967)
(The Patent Office is required "to produce the factual basis for its rejection
of an application under section[] 102.").
Based on our review of the record, we find no factual basis to support
the Examiner's determination; moreover, we agree with Appellants that
Stuart Fiske discloses the migration tracking is performed at the cluster level
rather than at the page level. See Stuart Fiske, Fig. 2, 4:7--42; Reply Br. 2.
Thus, we are persuaded that the Examiner has not shown Stuart Fiske
discloses every limitation of the claimed invention. See Richardson v.
Suzuki Motor Co., 868 F.2d 1226, 1236 (Fed. Cir. 1989) ("[A]n invention is
anticipated if the same device, including all the claim limitations, is shown
in a single prior art reference. Every element of the claimed invention must
be literally present, arranged as in the claim.").
4
Appeal2018-001384
Application 13/015,733
Accordingly, we are persuaded the Examiner erred in finding Stuart
Fiske discloses the limitations of claim 11. We do not sustain the
Examiner's rejection of this claim, or the claims dependent thereon.
DECISION
The Examiner's decision rejecting claims 11-16 is reversed.
REVERSED
5