Ex Parte Arslan et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Nov 9, 2017

11919270 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 9, 2017)

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.
11/919,270 01/26/2010 Tughrul Arslan 120995 1953
23696 7590 11/14/2017
OTTAT mMM TNmRPORATFD
EXAMINER
5775 MOREHOUSE DR.
SAN DIEGO, CA 92121
GIROUX, GEORGE
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2182
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
11/14/2017 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):
us-docketing@qualcomm.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte TUGHRUL ARSLAN, MARK JOHN MILL WARD,
SAMI KHAWAM, IOANNIS NOUSIAS, and YING YI
Appeal 2015-002141
Application 11/919,270
Technology Center 2100
Before ERIC B. CHEN, JEREMY J. CURCURI, and IRVIN E. BRANCH,
Administrative Patent Judges.
CHEN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the final rejection of
claims 1—5, 8—11, 24, 29, 30, 32, 34—36, 39, 42, 44, 45, and 50. Claims 6, 7,
12—23, 25—28, 31, 33, 37, 38, 40, 41, 43, and 46-49 have been cancelled.
We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants’ invention relates a reconfigurable processor that executes
program instructions having datapaths of program instructions. (Spec.,
Abstract.)
Appeal 2015-002141
Application 11/919,270
Claim 29 is exemplary, with disputed limitations in italics:
29. A non-transitory computer-readable medium
storing instructions thereon that, when executed, cause one or
more processors to:
identify datapaths of program instructions having
independent program instructions and dependent program
instructions; and
map the datapaths of the dependent instructions and the
independent program instructions as circuits of the instruction
cells;
encode the configuration of circuits of instruction cells as
configuration instructions, wherein the configuration
instructions encode the mapping of the datapaths of the
dependent program instructions and the datapaths of the
independent program instructions to one or more of the circuits
of instruction cells,
wherein the configuration instructions further comprise
flow control instructions, and wherein the flow control
instructions are mapped to the circuits of the instruction cells;
and
output the configuration instructions.
Claims 29, 30, 32, 34—36, 39, and 42 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) as anticipated by Hammes (US 2004/0088691 Al, published
May 6, 2004).
Claims 1—4, 44, 45, and 50 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Hammes.
Claims 5, 8—11, and 24 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Hammes and Vorback (US 2005/0066213 Al, published
Mar. 24, 2005).
2
Appeal 2015-002141
Application 11/919,270
§102 Rejection—Hammes
We are persuaded by Appellants’ arguments (App. Br. 8—9; see also
Reply Br. 2—3) that Hammes does not describe the limitation “configuration
instructions further comprise flow control instructions, and wherein the flow
control instructions are mapped to the circuits of the instruction cells,” as
recited in independent claim 29.
The Examiner found that the reconfigurable hardware portion of
Hammes corresponds to the limitation “circuits of the instruction cells.”
(Ans. 3; see also Final Act. 4.) The Examiner further found that the control
flow graph-dataflow graph (CFG-DFG) representations of Hammes
corresponds to the limitation “configuration instructions further comprise
flow control instructions, and wherein the flow control instructions are
mapped to the circuits of the instruction cells.” (Ans. 23.) In particular, the
Examiner found that “while Hammes doesn’t explicitly describe assigning
control flow instructions to the reconfigurable hardware, it teaches keeping
track of control flow instructions assigned to the reconfigurable hardware,
which tracking requires that they may be assigned as such.” {Id.) We do not
agree with the Examiner’s findings.
Hammes relates to “converting a high level language program into a
unified executable that can run on a hybrid reconfigurable hardware-
instruction processor computer.” (| 3.) In particular, Hammes explains that
forming a unified executable includes “partitioning the control-data flow
graph into [an] instruction processor portion and a reconfigurable hardware
portion.” (| 11.) Figure 2 of Hammes illustrates a flowchart for converting
a high level language program into a unified executable (117), including
“the conversion of the CFG representations into hybrid control-dataflow
3
Appeal 2015-002141
Application 11/919,270
graph representations (CFG-DFG) at step 204” (| 74) and “the partitioning
of the CFG-DFG representations into a reconfigurable hardware portion and
[an] instruction processor portion, at step 206” (]f 75). Moreover, Hammes
explains that “the partitioner program may receive instructions from a user
inserted partitioning syntax . . . that guides how the CFG-DFG code is
partitioned into reconfigurable hardware and instruction processor portions,”
for example, “a pragma may instruct the partitioner program to put a
particular loop operation in the instruction processor portion of the
partitioned CFG-DFG representations.” {Id.)
Although the Examiner cited to the reconfigurable hardware portion
of Hammes and the control flow graph dataflow graph (CFG-DFG)
representations of Hammes, the Examiner has provided insufficient
explanation to support a finding that Hammes discloses the limitation
“configuration instructions further comprise flow control instructions, and
wherein the flow control instructions are mapped to the circuits of the
instruction cells.” In particular, while the Examiner acknowledges that
“Hammes doesn’t explicitly describe assigning control flow instructions to
the reconfigurable hardware,” the Examiner has neither provided a citation
to Hammes nor provided any persuasive explanation to support the
statement that “it [Hammes] teaches keeping track of control flow
instructions assigned to the reconfigurable hardware.” (Ans. 23.) Moreover,
Hammes explains that “a pragma may instruct the partitioner program to put
a particular loop operation in the instruction processor portion of the
partitioned CFG-DFG representations” (175), rather than partitioning such
loop operation to the reconfigurable hardware portion, and on the record
4
Appeal 2015-002141
Application 11/919,270
before us we decline to speculatively extend Hammes’s teachings beyond
those specifically disclosed.
Accordingly, on this record, we are persuaded by Appellants’
arguments that “Hammes discloses that such [flow control] instructions may
be executed by the microprocessor portion of the hybrid system” and “to the
extent Hammes discloses conditional or unconditional branches (e.g., within
the control-dataflow graph and deterministic dataflow graph (CFG-DFG)
representation), e.g., flow control instructions, Hammes does not disclose
that such instructions are executed by the reconfigurable hardware portion of
Hammes.” (Reply Br. 2; see also App. Br. 8—9.)
Therefore, we do not agree with the Examiner that Hammes describes
the limitation “configuration instructions further comprise flow control
instructions, and wherein the flow control instructions are mapped to the
circuits of the instruction cells,” as recited in independent claim 29.
Accordingly, we do not sustain the rejection of independent claim 29
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b). Claims 30, 32, 34—36, 39, and 42 depend from
independent claim 29. Therefore, we do not sustain the rejection of
claims 30, 32, 34—36, 39, and 42 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) for the same
reasons discussed with respect to independent claim 29.
§103 Rejection—Hammes
Independent claims 1 and 44 recite limitations similar to those
discussed with respect to independent claim 29, and claims 2-4, 45, and 50
depend from claims 1 and 44. We do not sustain the rejection of claims 1—4,
44, 45, and 50 under U.S.C. § 103(a) over Hammes for the same reasons
5
Appeal 2015-002141
Application 11/919,270
discussed with respect to the rejection of claim 29 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)
as anticipated by Hammes.
§103 Rejection—Hammes and Vorback
Claims 5, 8—11, and 24 depend from independent claim 1. Vorback
was cited by the Examiner for teaching the additional features of claims 5,
8—11, and 24. (Final Act. 11—13.) However, the Examiner’s application of
Vorback does not cure the above noted deficiencies of Hammes.
DECISION
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1—5, 8—11, 24, 29, 30, 32,
34—36, 39, 42, 44, 45, and 50 is reversed.
REVERSED
6