Ex Parte Bello et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardAug 2, 201613092840 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 2, 2016) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 13/092,840 04/22/2011 87334 7590 08/04/2016 IBM END IPLA W (GLF) c/o Garg Law Firm, PLLC 4521 Copper Mountain Lane Richardson, TX 75082 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ADEKUNLE BELLO 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. END920110054US 1 7479 EXAMINER TA, TRANGKHANH ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2137 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 08/04/2016 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@garglaw.com dpandya@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 ADEKUNLE BELLO, DOUGLAS JAMES GRIFFITH, ANGELA ASTRID JAEHDE, and ARUNA YEDA VILLI Appeal2015-002223 Application 13/092,840 Technology Center 2100 Before BARBARA A. PARVIS, LINZY T. McCARTNEY, and NATHAN A. ENGELS, Administrative Patent Judges. PARVIS, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's final rejection of claims 1-10 and 13-22. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). Claims 11and12 have been canceled. We AFFIRM. Appeal2015-002223 Application 13/092,840 Claimed Subject Matter Appellants' invention relates to memory affinity in multithreaded environments. Spec. ,-r 1, 8. Claim 1 is illustrative and reproduced below: 1. A method for memory affinitization in a multithreaded environment, the method comprising: a first affinity domain formed in a computer receiving, from a second thread executing in a second affinity domain, a request to access a unit of memory in the first affinity domain; the computer determining, according to a set of policies, whether to migrate the unit of memory to the second affinity domain, wherein the set of policies comprises a first subset of policies, a second subset of policies, and a third subset of policies, wherein the first subset of policies comprises a policy applicable to a group of affinity domains, wherein the second subset of policies comprises a policy applicable to a group of threads to keep the group of threads together in a same affinity domain in the group of affinity domains, and wherein the third subset of policies comprises a policy applicable to a group of processes to keep the group of processes together in the same affinity domain; and the computer migrating, responsive the determining being affirmative, the unit of memory to the second affinity domain, thereby affinitizing the unit of memory with the second thread. The Rejections on Appeal Claims 1, 4--10, 13, and 16-22 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Fiske (US 6,453,408 Bl, Sept. 17, 2002) and Noordergraaf (US 2002/0129115 Al, Sept. 12, 2002). Final Act. 3-25. 2 Appeal2015-002223 Application 13/092,840 Claims 2, 3, 14, and 15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Fiske, Noordergraaf, and Feind (US 2004/0162952 Al, Aug. 19, 2004). Final Act. 26-30. Issues 1. Did the Examiner err in finding that the combination of Fiske and Noordergraafteaches "the second subset of policies comprises a policy applicable to a group of threads to keep the group of threads together in a same affinity domain" and "the third subset of policies comprises a policy applicable to a group of processes to keep the group of processes together in the same affinity domain," as recited in claim 1, and commensurately recited in independent claims 13 and 20? ANALYSIS We have reviewed the Examiner's rejection in light of Appellants' arguments that the Examiner has erred. We disagree with Appellants' conclusion that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1-10 and 13-22. We adopt as our own the findings and reasons set forth by the Examiner in the action from which this appeal is taken (Final Act. 3-30) and in the Examiner's Answer in response to the Appeal Brief (Ans. 2-8). Below, we highlight and address specific findings and arguments for emphasis. In reaching this decision, we consider all evidence presented and all arguments actually made by Appellants. Our decision sustaining the rejection of the claims is based only on the arguments presented by Appellant in the Appeal Brief and the evidence of record. We do not consider arguments which Appellants could have made but chose not to make in the Briefs, and we deem any such arguments as waived. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv). 3 Appeal2015-002223 Application 13/092,840 Claims 1-10 and 13-20 We are not persuaded by Appellants' arguments that the Examiner erred in finding that the combination of Fiske and N oordergraaf teaches "the second subset of policies comprises a policy applicable to a group of threads to keep the group of threads together in a same affinity domain" and "the third subset of policies comprises a policy applicable to a group of processes to keep the group of processes together in the same affinity domain," as recited in claim 1, and commensurately recited in independent claims 13 and 20. For both the above-referenced limitations, the Examiner points to Noordergraaf s teachings relating to affinity policies in a multi-processor distributed environment. Final Act. 6-7 (citing Noordergraafi-fi-17, 15, 17, 57, 63, 64); Ans. 3---6 (citing Noordergraafi-fi-12, 4, 31, 53, 63, 64, 76). Appellants acknowledge that Noordergraafs teaches policies that pertain to "a relationship between a thread and a resource," and "a relationship between a thread or a process and a resource, where the thread/process and the related resource should be kept together." App. Br. 13-14. Appellants also acknowledge that "Noordergraafteaches a policy that replicates pages." Reply Br. 2. Appellants, however, contend that Noordergraaf does not teach or suggest a policy that provides "any relationship between a thread and another thread, where the thread and the other thread should be kept together" or "any relationship between a process and another process, where the two processes should be kept together." App. Br. 13-14. Appellants further contend that Noordergraaf s teachings "oppose Examiner's argument," because "para[graph] 0063 [of NoordergraafJ expressly teaches to keep the threads in their expected places and binding or fixing then to a node." Reply Br. 3. 4 Appeal2015-002223 Application 13/092,840 We are not persuaded by Appellants' contentions that the Examiner erred. Noordergraaf teaches "in order for explicit memory placement policies to work effectively, one must also insure that the threads accessing the memory stay in the expected paces; typically this is done by binding threads to nodes or processors." N oordergraaf i-f 63 (emphasis added). As the Examiner finds (Final Act. 6, 7; Ans. 2---6), Noordergraaf teaches the following alternative: It is possible to think of threads as nothing more than virtual processors. Similarly, one may think of each virtual processor as having some amount of "local" memory associated with itself. Binding memory or threads to physical resources may thus be avoided by establishing policies which establish a binding between particular threads and particular memory. That is, rather than bind both threads and memory to particular physical resources, one could employ a scheme whereby data was tightly tied to particular threads. Utilizing such a scheme, the operating system would determine where particular threads are executed, and make an effort to ensure that the memory associated 1lvith those threads is local to 1lvhere the threads are actually executing. Should it become necessary to shuffle threads between nodes, then the associated memory should also move to those nodes on an as-needed basis. Id. i-f 64 (emphasis added). Additionally, the Examiner finds that Noordergraaf s policy for replicating pages on a requesting node teaches a policy that keeps the group of threads together in the same affinity domain because the group of threads is accessing the same pages that are replicated. Ans. 2---6 (citing Noordergraaf i-fi-12, 4, 31, 53, 63, 64, 76). That Noordergraafteaches alternatives and further details regarding how the group of threads or processes are kept together does not negate the findings of the Examiner showing that Noordergraaf teaches the disputed limitations. 5 Appeal2015-002223 Application 13/092,840 Thus, Appellants have not persuaded us of error in the Examiner's rejection of independent claims 1, 13, and 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103, and dependent claims 2-10 and 14--19, not separately argued (App. Br. 15, 16). Accordingly, we sustain that rejection. Claim 21 and 22 Although Appellants address claims 21 and 22 under a separate heading, Appellants do not provide arguments differing substantially from the arguments presented for the independent claims. For example, Appellants contend that N oordergraaf fails to teach or suggest "policies similar to the policies of the second subset of claim 1" and "policies similar to the policies of the third subset of claim 1." App. Br. 15; see also Reply Br. 4 ("Dependent claims 4--10, 16-19, and 21-22 are also not obvious over the combination at least by virtue of their dependence from one of these independent claims.") Accordingly, for the same reasons as claim 1, we are not persuaded of error in the rejection of claims 21and22 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Fiske and Noordergraaf. DECISION We affirm the Examiner's rejection of claims 1-10 and 13-22 under 35 U.S.C. § 103. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l )(iv). AFFIRMED 6 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation