Ex Parte Brenner et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Oct 20, 2016

13544958 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 20, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/544,958 07/09/2012
70748 7590
IBM Corp. (AUS/RCR)
c/o Rolnik Law Firm, P.C.
24 N. Main St.
Kingwood, TX 77339
10/24/2016
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Larry B. Brenner
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.
AUS920070969US2 6389
EXAMINER
VICARY, KEITH E
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2182
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
10/24/2016 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):
notices@rolnikiplaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte LARRY B. BRENNER,
DIRK MICHEL, and BRET R. OLSZEWSKI
Appeal2015-008304
Application 13/544,958
Technology Center 2100
Before MARC S. HOFF, STEPHEN C. SIU, and ALEX S. YAP,
Administrative Patent Judges.
SIU, Administrative Patent Judge
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the
Examiner's Final Rejection of claims 2 and 5. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
The disclosed invention relates generally to placing threads in a
shared processor partitioning environment. Spec i-f 0002. Independent claim
2 reads as follows:
2. A computer implemented method for moving software
threads to a virtual processor of a data processing system having
a plurality of virtual processors, the method comprising:
assigning a first software thread to a first virtual processor;
Appeal2015-008304
Application 13/544,958
detecting cooperation between the first software thread
and a second software thread with respect to a lock associated
with a resource of the data processing system, wherein the step
of detecting cooperation further comprises:
detecting that the second software thread targeted the first
software thread for wakeup; and
determining that a targeted virtual processor has a
consumption below 80%, wherein the targeted virtual processor
is a virtual processor assigned to the second software thread; and
responsive to the step of detecting cooperation, moving the
first software thread from the first the first virtual processor to
the targeted virtual processor.
The Examiner rejects claims 2 and 5 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Burdick et al. (US 2006/0130062 Al, published June 15,
2006 ("Burdick"); Srinivas Sridharan, et al., "Thread Migration to Improve
Synchronization Performance" ("Sridharan"); and Magenheimer et al.
(US 2008/0104587 Al, published Mayl, 2008 ("Magenheimer").
ISSUE
Did the Examiner err in rejecting claims 2 and 5?
ANALYSIS
Claim 2 recites detecting cooperation between a first and second
software thread and, responsive to the step of detecting cooperation, moving
the first software thread from the first virtual processor to the targeted virtual
processor. Claim 2 also recites that detecting cooperation comprises
detecting that the second thread targeted the first thread and determining that
a targeted processor has a consumption below 80%.
2
Appeal2015-008304
Application 13/544,958
Appellants argue that Magenheimer fails to disclose "what is to be
done, in response, ... to virtual processor consumption below 80%, as
claimed" and that "[t]he Examiner does not rely on Sridharan or Burdick to
remedy the deficiency of Magenheimer." App. Br. 10.
We are not persuaded by Appellants' argument at least because
Appellants fail to demonstrate persuasively that the Examiner, in fact, "does
not rely on Sridharan or Burdick to remedy the [alleged] deficiency of
Magenheimer." Rather, as the Examiner explains, Sridharan discloses
"identify[ing] the thread that currently holds a ... lock," "moving threads
... to the processor that is executing the thread that currently holds the
lock," and "migrat[ion of] threads from a processor that is carrying a heavy
load to a processor or processors that currently has a light load." Final Rej.
8-9 (citing Sridharan 2). The Examiner also explains that one of skill in the
art would have understood that a "light load" (as disclosed by Sridharan)
would have included a consumption below 80% based on, at least,
Magenheimer. Final Act. 9 (citing Magenheimer i-f 44). At least because the
Examiner relies on the combination of Sridharan, Burdick, and
Magenheimer and not Magenheimer in isolation, we are not persuaded by
Appellants' argument.
Appellants argue that Sridharan "does not disclose that a virtual
processor, which is not heavily loaded, ... has a consumption below 80% --
a part of the ... cause" and therefore, according to Appellants, "cannot serve
to trigger a resultant step [of moving the first software thread from the first
the first virtual processor to the targeted virtual processor]." App. Br. 12. In
3
Appeal2015-008304
Application 13/544,958
other words, Appellants argue that Sridharan fails to disclose moving the
first software thread from the first processor to a targeted processor
responsive to determining that the targeted processor has a consumption
below 80%. As previously discussed, however, the Examiner relies on
Sridharan, for example, as disclosing moving a thread to a processor "that
currently has a light load" while Magenheimer discloses that one of skill in
the art would have understood that a processor that "currently has a light
load" would a processor with a consumption of less than 80%. At least
because the Examiner relies on the combination of Sridharan, Burdick, and
Magenheimer, and not just Sridharan in isolation, we are not persuaded by
Appellants' argument.
Appellants do not provide additional arguments in support of claim 2
or claim 5.
SUMMARY
We affirm the Examiner's rejection of claims 2 and 5 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Burdick, Sridharan, and Magenheimer.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a) (1) (iv).
AFFIRMED
4