Ex Parte Allen-Ware et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jan 18, 2018

13040094 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 18, 2018)

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.
13/040,094 03/03/2011 Malcolm Scott Allen-Ware AUS920110011US1 2219
75916 7590
IBM AUS IPLAW (GLF)
c/o Garg Law Firm, PLLC
4521 Copper Mountain Lane
Richardson, TX 75082
EXAMINER
QUIGLEY, KYLE ROBERT
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2865
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
01/22/2018 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):
dpandy a @ garglaw. com
uspto@garglaw.com
garglaw @gmail.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte MALCOLM SCOTT ALLEN-WARE, JOHN BRUCE
CARTER, ELMOOTAZBELLAH NABIL
ELNOZAHY, and WEI HUANG
Appeal 2017-005228
Application 13/040,094
Technology Center 2800
Before TERRY J. OWENS, CHRISTOPHER L. OGDEN, and
JULIA HEANEY, Administrative Patent Judges.
OWENS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 1-20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
The Invention
The Appellants claim a method and computer usable program product
for on-chip control of integrated circuit thermal cycling. Claims 1 and 8 are
illustrative:
1. A computer implemented method for on-chip control of
thermal cycling in an integrated circuit (IC), the method
comprising:
Appeal 2017-005228
Application 13/040,094
configuring on the IC a first circuit for adjusting a first
voltage being applied to a first part of the IC;
measuring a first temperature of the first part at a first
time;
determining that the first temperature is outside a
temperature range defined by an upper temperature threshold
and a lower temperature threshold;
comparing the first temperature to a previous temperature,
wherein the previous temperature is measured at the first part
at a time prior to the first time;
determining a trend in a temperature change of the first
part, wherein the trend is an increasing trend when the first
temperature exceeds the previous temperature and the trend is
a decreasing trend when the previous temperature exceeds the
first temperature; and
adjusting the first voltage by variably reducing the first
voltage from a nominal voltage in several steps when the first
temperature exceeds the upper temperature threshold and by
variably increasing the first voltage from a nominal voltage in
several steps when the first temperature is below the lower
temperature threshold, the adjusting slowing the trend and
causing the first temperature of the first part to attain a value
within the temperature range.
8. A computer usable program product comprising a
computer usable storage device including computer usable code
for on-chip control of thermal cycling in an integrated circuit
(IC), the computer usable code comprising:
computer usable code for configuring on the IC a first
circuit for adjusting a first voltage being applied to a first part
of the IC;
computer usable code for measuring a first temperature of
the first part at a first time;
computer usable code for determining that the first
temperature is outside a temperature range defined by an upper
temperature threshold and a lower temperature threshold;
comparing the first temperature to a previous temperature,
wherein the previous temperature is measured at the first part at
a time prior to the first time;
2
Appeal 2017-005228
Application 13/040,094
determining a trend in a temperature change of the first
part, wherein the trend is an increasing trend when the first
temperature exceeds the previous temperature and the trend is a
decreasing trend when the previous temperature exceeds the
first temperature; and
computer usable code for adjusting the first voltage by
variably reducing the first voltage from a nominal voltage in
several steps when the first temperature exceeds the upper
temperature threshold and by variably increasing the first
voltage from a nominal voltage in several steps when the first
temperature is below the lower temperature threshold, the
adjusting slowing the trend and causing the first temperature of
the first part to attain a value within the temperature range.
Rotem
The References
US 2006/0034343 A1 Feb. 16, 2006
Dobberpuhl US 2007/0001697 A1 Jan. 4, 2007
Chaparro Monferrer US 2008/0236175 A1 Oct. 2, 2008
Kameyama US 2009/0295458 A1 Dec. 3, 2009
Laitinen US 2011/0205888 A1 Aug. 25,2011
(filed Feb. 25,2010)
The Rejections
The claims stand rejected as follows: claims 8-16 under
35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to
particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the
applicant regards as the invention, claims 8-16 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as
failing to claim patent eligible subject matter, claims 1, 7, 8 and 14-17 under
35 U.S.C. § 103 over Kameyama in view of Dobberpuhl and Laitinen,
claims 2—4, 9-11 and 18-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Kameyama in view
of Dobberpuhl, Laitinen and Chaparro Monferrer, and claims 5, 6, 12 and 13
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Kameyama in view of Dobberpuhl, Laitinen and
Rotem.
3
Appeal 2017-005228
Application 13/040,094
OPINION
We reverse the rejections.
Rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph
“[T]he indefiniteness inquiry asks whether the claims ‘circumscribe a
particular area with a reasonable degree of precision and particularity.’”
Marley Mouldings Ltd. v. Mikron Industries Inc., 417 F.3d 1356, 1359 (Fed.
Cir. 2005), quoting In re Moore, 439 F.2d 1232, 1235 (CCPA 1971).
The Examiner concludes that claim 8 and its dependent claims 9-16
are unclear because claim 8 claims a computer usable program product
including computer usable code, but the recited computer usable code
comprises “comparing” and “determining” which actually are not computer
usable code but, rather, are method steps (Non-final Act. 3; Ans. 3—4).1
Although claim 8 lacks “computer usable code for” before
“comparing” and “determining”, the recitation that the claim limitations are
computer usable code and the appearance of “computer usable code” before
every other claim limitation indicate with a reasonable degree of precision
and particularity that “comparing” and “determining” mean “computer code
for comparing” and “computer code for determining”.
Accordingly, we reverse the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second
paragraph.
1 Citations herein are to the non-final action mailed May 19, 2016.
4
Appeal 2017-005228
Application 13/040,094
Rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101
“Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine,
manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement
thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and
requirements of this title.” 35 U.S.C. § 101. The Supreme Court stated in
Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593, 601 (2010) that “[t]he Court’s precedents
provide three specific exceptions to § 101’s broad patent-eligibility
principles: Taws of nature, physical phenomena, and abstract ideas.’
[Diamond v.] Chakrabarty, [447 U.S. 303,] 309, 100 S. Ct. 2204 [(1980)].”
The Examiner concludes that claims 8-16 claim software per se and,
therefore, fail to claim patent eligible subject matter (Non-final Act. 3—4;
Ans. 4).
The Supreme Court and the Federal Circuit have not treated claims to
computer readable storage media containing instructions for performing
methods as per se patent ineligible but, rather, with respect to patent
eligibility have treated those claims the same way as claims to the performed
methods. See Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Intern., 134 S. Ct. 2347,
2353, 2360 (2014); Amdocs (Israel) Ltd. v. Openet Telecom, Inc., 841 F.3d
1288, 1299, 1304 (Fed. Cir. 2016); CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions,
Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1373-74 (Fed. Cir. 2011).
The Examiner concludes that “Applicant’s ‘computer program
product’ encompasses both statutory and non-statutory media including but
not limited to carrier waves” (Non-final Act. 4) and “the ‘computer usable
storage device’ of the preamble potentially amounts to the recitation of
transitory medium, when read reasonably broadly” (Ans. 4).
5
Appeal 2017-005228
Application 13/040,094
The Federal Circuit has held that transitory, propagating signals are
patent ineligible. See In reNuijten, 500 F.3d 1346, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2007).
The Appellants’ Specification states that “[t]he computer readable medium
may be a computer readable signal medium or a computer readable storage
medium” (Spec. ^ 84). The Appellants’ claims 8-16, however, are limited
to a computer usable storage device. The Appellants’ Specification states
that “[i]n the context of this document, a computer readable storage device
may be any tangible device or medium that can contain, or store a program
for use by or in connection with an instruction execution system, apparatus,
or device” (id.). Thus, the Appellants’ claim term “computer usable storage
device” excludes transitory media such as carrier waves.
We therefore reverse the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103
We need address only the independent claims, i.e., 1 and 8.2
Setting forth a prima facie case of obviousness requires establishing
that the applied prior art would have provided one of ordinary skill in the art
with an apparent reason to modify the prior art to arrive at the claimed
invention. See KSRInt’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007).
Kameyama prevents thermal runaway of an integrated circuit chip
having a built-in central processing unit (CPU) by gradually decreasing the
CPU operation clock’s frequency and, consequently, the CPU’s processing
capacity, as the chip’s temperature increases above a selected minimum
2 The Examiner does not rely upon Chaparro Monferrer or Rotem for any
disclosure that remedies the deficiency in Kameyama, Dobberpuhl and
Laitinen as to the limitations in the independent claims (Non-final Act. 10-
15).
6
Appeal 2017-005228
Application 13/040,094
value (e.g., 95 °C), and when the chip’s temperature reaches a selected
maximum value (e.g., 135 °C), turning off the clock and the CPU’s internal
operating power supply voltage until the chip’s temperature falls below the
selected minimum value, at which time the CPU’s normal operation clock’s
frequency and internal operating power supply voltage are resumed (]fl| 16,
17, 116-120, 130).
Dobberpuhl manages an integrated circuit chip’s power consumption
using measurement units (18A-C) on the chip, each measurement unit
measuring the supply voltage at which circuitry in the measurement unit
operates correctly at the measurement unit’s operating frequency, and
outputting to a control unit (20) signals indicating the supply voltage
increase or decrease needed to provide the integrated circuit supply voltage
at which the integrated circuit is operable at a given operating frequency
ffl 8-10, 30, 49; Fig. 1).
Laitinen discloses a packet-based communication apparatus which
controls its temperature by dropping packets and thereby decreasing the data
rate as the temperature approaches a temperature threshold (]fl| 6, 22, 27). At
a temperature exceeding a maximum threshold, parts of the apparatus which
consume electrical power, such as the transmitter and/or receiver, are
switched off 26).
The Examiner concludes that in view of Dobberpuhl, “[i]t would have
been obvious to variably change [Kameyama’s] first voltage from a nominal
voltage in several steps because doing so would have been an advantageous
way of controlling the temperature of the integrated circuit without the need
to take more drastic measures, such as turning off the integrated circuit
entirely” (Non-final Act. 7).
7
Appeal 2017-005228
Application 13/040,094
The Examiner does not establish that Dobberpuhl’s disclosure of
varying supply voltage to manage chip power consumption would have
provided one of ordinary skill in the art with an apparent reason to gradually
stop Kameyama’s CPU’s internal operating power supply voltage which is
stopped to prevent thermal runaway when the chip temperature exceeds a
maximum threshold. Nor does the Examiner establish that Kameyama’s
integrated circuit would function properly during stepwise reduction of the
CPU’s internal operating power supply voltage.
The Examiner concludes that in view of Laitinen, “[determining a
rising or falling temperature trend in such a way would have been obvious
because knowing whether temperature is rising or falling would have been
useful for the act of adjusting voltage to keep the chip temperature within a
permissible limit of ranges [for example, see Kameyama Paragraph [0130]
— the range of ‘95q C’ to ‘130° C’]” (Non-final Act. 8).
Kameyama does not control the chip temperature within a particular
range such as 95-135 °C but, rather, starts to control the temperature if it has
risen above a selected value such as 95 °C (TJ 116). Lower temperatures are
within Kameyama’s normal operation temperature range (id.). The
Examiner does not establish that Laitinen’s disclosure of reducing
packet-based communication apparatus temperature by dropping packets
would have provided one of ordinary skill in the art with an apparent reason
to keep Kameyama’s chip temperature above a lower limit. Thus, the
Examiner does not establish that the applied references would have
suggested “adjusting the first voltage ... by variably increasing the first
voltage from a nominal voltage in several steps when the first temperature is
8
Appeal 2017-005228
Application 13/040,094
below the lower temperature threshold” as required by the Appellants’
claims 1 and 8.
For the above reasons we reverse the rejections under
35 U.S.C. § 103.
DECISION/ORDER
The rejections of claims 8-16 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second
paragraph, claims 8-16 under 35 U.S.C. § 101, claims 1, 7, 8 and 14-17
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Kameyama in view of Dobberpuhl and Laitinen,
claims 2—4, 9-11 and 18-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Kameyama in view
of Dobberpuhl, Laitinen and Chaparro Monferrer, and claims 5, 6, 12 and 13
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Kameyama in view of Dobberpuhl, Laitinen and
Rotem are reversed.
It is ordered that the Examiner’s decision is reversed.
REVERSED
9