Ex Parte BOSE et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 16, 2016

12256907 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 16, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/256,907 10/23/2008
49267 7590 06/20/2016
TUTUNJIAN & BITETTO, P,C
401 Broadhollow Road, Suite 402
Melville, NY 11747
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
PRADIPBOSE
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.
YOR920040520US2 (58
DIV)
CONFIRMATION NO.
6097
EXAMINER
NGHIEM, MICHAEL P
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2862
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/20/2016 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):
patents@tb-iplaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte PRADIP BOSE, JUDE A. RIVERS, and
JAY ANTH SRINIVASAN
Appeal2014-009401
Application 12/256,907
Technology Center 2800
Before DEBRA K. STEPHENS, JASON V. MORGAN, and
DAVID J. CUTITTA II, Administrative Patent Judges.
STEPHENS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a Final Rejection of
claims 1-19. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
STATEMENT OF THE INVENTION
According to Appellants, the claims are directed to a method and
apparatus for monitoring and enhancing on-chip microprocessor reliability
Appeal2014-009401
Application 12/256,907
(Abstract). Claim 1, reproduced below, is representative of the claimed
subject matter:
1. A system for projecting reliability to manage system
functions, comprising:
an activity module which determines activity in the system
that occurs during operation of the system;
a reliability module interacting with the activity module to
determine a reliability measurement for the system in real-time
based upon the activity and measured operational quantities of
the system, wherein the reliability measurement characterizes
one or more potential physical failure mechanisms; and
a management module which manages actions of the
system based upon the reliability measurement from the
reliability module.
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Marr
Bose
Buyuktosunoglu
Satya
Moore
us 5,999,466
US 7,506,216 B2
US 2002/0053038 Al
US 2003/0097228 Al
US 2005/0273642 Al
REJECTIONS
Dec. 7, 1999
Mar. 1 7, 2009
May 2, 2002
May 22, 2003
Dec. 8, 2005
Claims 1-8, and 14--17 are provisionally rejected on the ground of
non-statutory obviousness-type double patenting (Final Act. 2-5).
Claims 1, 3-7, and 14--16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as
being unpatentable over Moore (Final Act. 6-9).
Claim 2 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Moore and Buyuktosunoglu (Final Act. 9-10).
2
Appeal2014-009401
Application 12/256,907
Claims 8, 9, and 17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Moore and Satya (Final Act. 10-11).
Claims 10-13, 18, and 19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as
being unpatentable over Moore and Marr (Final Act. 12-13).
ISSUE 1
Non-Statutory Double Patenting: Claims 1-8, and 14-17
Appellants present no arguments pertaining to the Examiner's
limitations of the claimed subject matter rejection of claims 1-8, and 14--17
(App. Br. 1-26; Reply Br. 1-8), instead, in their response of October 15,
2013, indicating a terminal disclaimer will be filed when all substantive
issues have been resolved. Accordingly, we summarily sustain these
rejections. See Manual of Patent Examining Procedure (MPEP) § 1205.02,
8th ed., Rev. 9 (August 2012) ("If a ground of rejection stated by the
examiner is not addressed in the [A ]ppellant's brief, appellant has waived
any challenge to that ground of rejection and the Board may summarily
sustain it").
ISSUE 2
35 U.S.C. § 103(a): Claims 1, 3-7, and 14-16
Appellants assert their invention is not obvious over Moore (App. Br.
10-12). The issues presented by the arguments are:
Has the Examiner erred in finding Moore teaches or suggests "a
reliability module interacting with the activity module to determine a
reliability measurement for the system in real-time based upon the
activity and measured operational quantities of the system, wherein
3
Appeal2014-009401
Application 12/256,907
the reliability measurement characterizes one or more potential
physical failure mechanisms," as recited in representative independent
claim 1?
ANALYSIS
Initially, as a matter of claim construction, we note Appellants have
not defined explicitly "physical failure mechanism" in their Specification.
Appellants argue Moore does not teach or suggest "a reliability
module interacting with the activity module to determine a reliability
measurement for the system in real-time based upon the activity and
measured operational quantities of the system, wherein the reliability
measurement characterizes one or more potential physical failure
mechanisms" (App. Br. 10-12). Specifically, Appellants argue that
"Moore's discussion of tracking a device's running time and number of
power cycles" cannot be relied upon for the teaching of both the activity and
measured operational quantities (id. at 11 ). Appellants further argue that
even if running time and number of power cycles are considered a
determination of a reliability measurement, "the collected activity data in
Moore ... cannot be fairly interpreted as reading on a characterization of a
physical failure mechanism" (id. at 12).
We are not persuaded by Appellants' arguments. We agree with the
Examiner's finding that "Moore discloses measured activity information
(tracked run time/number of power cycles)" (Ans. 3), and the activity
information is "'useful in measuring reliability parameters"' (id. at 3
(quoting Moore i-f 54)). We further agree "the reliability parameters of
Moore characterize physical failure mechanisms" (id. at 3), where Moore's
4
Appeal2014-009401
Application 12/256,907
run time is the activity, the number of power on cycles is the measured
operational quantities, and the tracked and stored running times and number
of power cycles are measurements used to measure reliability parameters (id.
at 4--5). The Examiner further finds Moore "discloses reliability parameters
characterizing a physical failure mechanism" (id. at 6) because Moore
discloses reliability predictions, which include "the assessment and
prediction of failure rates" that are utilized to decide "replacement parts
needs" and "end-item estimated lifetime" (id. (citing Moore i-fi-f l-2)).
Therefore, we agree with the Examiner's findings that Moore teaches
the claimed reliability module. Specifically, we agree Moore's tracked run
times teach the recited activity and Moore's number of power cycles teaches
measured operational quantities. We further agree Moore teaches using
those measurements to determine the reliability of physical failure
mechanisms that may include parts replacement and estimation for end of
lifetime (id. at 2-7).
Appellants argue physical failure mechanisms are not taught by
Moore, and Appellants cite examples of physical failure mechanisms (App.
Br. 11-12; Reply Br. 5); however, as noted above, the term is not expressly
limited or defined in the claim language, nor is it defined in Appellants'
Specification (see, e.g., Spec. 14 ). Appellants have not proffered sufficient
evidence or argument to persuade us of error in the Examiner's findings
when taking a broad, but reasonable interpretation of "physical failure
mechanism" in light of Appellants' Specification.
Accordingly, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in finding
Moore teaches or suggests the limitations as recited in claim 1 and claims 3-
7, and 14--16, not separately argued. Therefore, we sustain the rejection of
5
Appeal2014-009401
Application 12/256,907
claims 1, 3-7, and 14--16 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) for obviousness over
Moore.
ISSUE 3
35 U.S.C. § 103(a): Claim 2
Appellants assert their invention is not obvious over Moore and
Buyuktosunoglu (App. Br. 13-17). The issue presented by the arguments is:
Has the Examiner erred in finding the combination of Moore
and Buyuktosunoglu teaches or suggests "wherein the activity of the
system includes measurement of activity determined by an instruction
per cycle analysis based on a number of instructions per cycle
determined as part of the reliability measurement" as recited in claim
2?
ANALYSIS
Appellants contend Moore and Buyuktosunoglu does not teach or
suggest "wherein the activity of the system includes measurement of activity
determined by an instruction per cycle analysis based on a number of
instructions per cycle determined as part of the reliability measurement"
(App. Br. 14--17). Specifically, Appellants argue Buyuktosunoglu "does not
relate its instructions-per-cycle measurement to reliability at all," and the
performance metric disclosed in Buyuktosunoglu does not "provide for the
characterization of a physical failure mechanism" (id. at 15-16). Appellants
further argue the instructions per cycle cited in Buyuktosunoglu "does not
relate the cited performance measurement to reliability," and an ordinarily
skilled artisan would "recognize that 'performance' as a general concept is
simply unrelated" to the run times and power cycles in Moore (id. at 16).
6
Appeal2014-009401
Application 12/256,907
Based on differences in performance measures, Appellants argue the
Examiner "provides no rationale for how one could reasonably connect" the
two measurements and the Examiner "cannot serve to create a relationship
that does not exist in the cited references or the art as a whole" (id.).
We are not persuaded by Appellants' arguments. We agree with the
Examiner's finding that Moore teaches the characterized physical failure
mechanism, as discussed above. The Examiner finds Buyuktosunoglu
discloses "instruction( s) per cycle is a common metric of microarchitecture
level performance measured in a microprocessor" (Ans. 7 (quoting
Buyuktosunoglu i-f 91)). Appellants have not persuaded us the Examiner's
determination that combining the activity and reliability disclosed in Moore
with the activity analysis based on a number of instructions per cycle
disclosed in Buyuktosunoglu would have been obvious (Ans. 8), is in error.
Accordingly, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in finding the
combination of Moore and Buyuktosunoglu teaches or suggests the
limitations as recited in claim 2. Therefore, we sustain the rejection of claim
2 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) for obviousness over Moore and
Buyuktosunoglu.
ISSUE 4
35 U.S.C. § 103(a): Claims 8, 9, and 17
Appellants assert their invention is not obvious over Moore and Satya
(App. Br. 17-18). The issue presented by the arguments is:
If Moore fails to teach or suggest the claimed reliability module
of representative independent claim 1, then has the Examiner also
erred in finding Moore and Satya teaches or suggests "wherein the
7
Appeal2014-009401
Application 12/256,907
reliability measurement includes a mean time to failure value for the
entire system," as recited in dependent claims 8, 9, and 17?
ANALYSIS
Appellants contend Moore and Satya does not teach or suggest
"wherein the reliability measurement includes a mean time to failure value
for the entire system" (App. Br. 17-18). Specifically, Appellants argue that
Moore is directed to retrieving reliability data, while Satya discloses
managing reliability for semiconductors; and Satya "fails to provide the
relationship between activity data and the reliability measurements" because
the analysis in Satya is made before the devices are run (id. at 18).
We are not persuaded by Appellants' arguments. We agree with the
Examiner's finding that Moore teaches the claimed activity, reliability
measurement, and characterized physical failure mechanism, as discussed
above with respect to claim 1. We further agree with the Examiner's finding
that the mean time to failure calculated in Satya is an obvious modification
of Moore, as a measurement of reliability for the entire system (Final Act.
10-11 ). Specifically, Appellants' argument that Satya fails to show a
relationship because it has no access to activity data (App. Br. 20), is not
persuasive. Satya teaches reliability models, one of which is based on mean-
time to failure (Final Act. 10-11; Satya i-f 83). Appellants have not proffered
sufficient evidence or argument to persuade us an ordinarily skilled artisan
would not have found it obvious to modify Moore with the teachings of
Satya.
Accordingly, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in finding the
combination of Moore and Satya teaches or suggests the limitations as
8
Appeal2014-009401
Application 12/256,907
recited in claim 8 and claims 9 and 17, not separately argued. Therefore, we
sustain the rejection of claims 8, 9, and 17 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) for
obviousness over Moore and Satya.
ISSUE 5
35 U.S.C. § 103(a): Claims 10--13, and 18-19
Appellants assert their invention is not obvious over Moore and Marr
(App. Br. 20-25). The issue presented by the arguments is:
Has the Examiner erred in finding Moore teaches or suggests
"wherein the management module compares the reliability
measurement of a current period with a threshold and, based on said
comparison, takes action to increase or reduce operating conditions to
adjust the reliability measurement in a subsequent period," as recited
in dependent claim 10 and similarly recited in dependent claim 18?
ANALYSIS
Appellants contend Moore and Marr does not teach or suggest
"wherein the management module compares the reliability measurement of a
current period with a threshold and, based on said comparison, takes action
to increase or reduce operating conditions to adjust the reliability
measurement in a subsequent period" (App. Br. 20-25). Specifically,
Appellants argue Moore does not teach the reliability module features of
independent claims 1 and 14 (id. at 22). Appellants further argue the
combination of Moore and Marr does not teach the claims required order of
events, where the adjustment action occurs subsequent to the reliability
measurement's threshold comparison (id. at 24).
9
Appeal2014-009401
Application 12/256,907
We are not persuaded by Appellants' arguments. We agree with the
Examiner's finding that Moore teaches the claimed activity, reliability
measurement, and characterized physical failure mechanism discussed
above. The Examiner finds Marr discloses comparison of the exercised
circuit enables "determination of certain reliability characteristics for the
circuit" (Ans. 12 (quoting Marr 11:61---63)); and the reliability of the
measured voltage screening disclosed in Marr is "'achieved by adjusting
memory cell voltage supplies"' (id. at 12 (quoting Marr 11:9-17)). We
further agree with the Examiner's finding that the action to increase or
reduce voltage is based on the comparison of reliability measurement (id. at
12). More specifically, we determine Moore's teaching of adjustment and
subsequent comparison, teaches the recited order of operations because an
adjustment is followed by comparison which is followed by another
adjustment and thus, teaches a comparison followed by an adjustment.
Accordingly, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in finding the
combination of Moore and Marr teaches or suggests the limitations as
recited in claim 10 and claims 11-13, and 18-19, not separately argued.
Therefore, we sustain the rejection of claims 10-13, and 18-19 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) for obviousness over Moore and Marr.
DECISION
The Examiner's rejection of claims 1-8, and 14--17 under non-
statutory obviousness-type double patenting as being obvious over
conflicting US Patent No. 7,506,216, is AFFIRMED.
The Examiner's rejection of claims 1, 3-7, and 14--16 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Moore is AFFIRMED.
10
Appeal2014-009401
Application 12/256,907
The Examiner's rejection of claim 2 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Moore and Buyuktosunoglu is AFFIRMED.
The Examiner's rejection of claims 8, 9, and 17 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Moore and Satya is AFFIRMED.
The Examiner's rejection of claims 10-13, and 18-19 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Moore and Marr is AFFIRMED.
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
11