Ex Parte Breternitz et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 21, 2017

13708090 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 21, 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.
13/708,090 12/07/2012 Mauricio Breternitz JR. 1458-120395 1002
109712 7590 08/23/2017
Advanced Micro Devices, Inc.
c/o Davidson Sheehan LLP
8834 North Capital of TX Hwy
Suite 100
Austin, TX 78759
EXAMINER
YU, JAEUN
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2135
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/23/2017 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):
docketing@ds-patent.com
AMD@DS-patent.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte MAURICIO BRETERNITZ JR., JAMES M. O’CONNOR,
SRILATHA MANNE, and YASUKO ECKERT
Appeal 2017-004432
Application 13/708,090
Technology Center 2100
Before ROBERT E. NAPPI, KALYAN K. DESHPANDE, and
DAVID M. KOHUT, Administrative Patent Judges.
KOHUT, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE1
Appellants2 seek review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 1—9 and 14—25.3 We have jurisdiction over the appeal
pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM-IN-PART and enter a NEW GROUND OF
REJECTION under 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b).
1 Our Decision makes reference to Appellants’ Reply Brief (“Reply Br.,”
filed January 17, 2017) and Appeal Brief (“App. Br.,” filed July 21, 2016),
and the Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.,” mailed November 17, 2016) and the
Non-Final Office Action (“Non-Final Act.,” mailed December 22, 2015).
2 According to Appellants, the Real Party in Interest is Advanced Micro
Devices, Inc. App. Br. 1.
3 Claims 10-13 were withdrawn previously.
Appeal 2017-004432
Application 13/708,090
INVENTION
Appellants’ invention is directed to reducing the impact of spill data
on processor efficiency and power consumption by removing spill data from
the memory hierarchy after it is no longer needed. Spec. 111.
Claims 1, 14, and 22 are the independent claims on appeal. An
understanding of the invention can be derived from illustrative claim 1.
1. A method, comprising:
in response to a field of an instruction indicating a final access to
first data stored at a memory hierarchy of a processor, discarding
the first data from the memory hierarchy.
REFERENCES
Scales US 2002/0016887 Al Feb. 7, 2002
Bennett et al.
(hereinafter “Bennett”)
US 2007/0113029 Al May 17,2007
Rahman et al.
(hereinafter “Rahman”)
US 2009/0037666 Al Feb. 5, 2009
Ono et al. US 2009/0172332 Al July 2, 2009
REJECTIONS
Claims 1—4, 6, 14, 18, and 22 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as obvious over the combination of Applicant Admitted Prior Art (“AAPA”)
and Bennett. Non-Final Act. 2-4.
Claims 5, 7, 17, 19, and 25 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
obvious over the combination of AAPA, Bennett, and Ono. Id. at 4—5.
Claims 8, 9, 20, and 21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
obvious over the combination of AAPA, Bennett, and Rahman. Id. at 5—6.
2
Appeal 2017-004432
Application 13/708,090
Claims 15, 16, 23, and 24 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
obvious over the combination of AAPA, Bennett, and Scales. Id. at 6—8.
ISSUES
Did the Examiner err in finding the combination of AAPA and
Bennett teaches or suggests “a field of an instruction indicating a final
access to first data stored at a memory hierarchy of a processor, discarding
the first data from the memory [of] hierarchy,” as recited in independent
claim 1, and similarly required in independent claims 14 and 22?
Did the Examiner err in finding the combination of AAPA and
Bennett teaches or suggests “a load instruction that results in a load access to
the first data,” as recited in dependent claim 2?
Did the Examiner err in finding the combination of AAPA, Bennett,
and Ono teaches or suggests “determining the final access to the first data
further based upon a modification of a stack pointer that results in the first
data being removed from the stack,” as recited in dependent claim 5?
Did the Examiner err in finding the combination of AAPA and
Bennett teaches or suggests “discarding a plurality of data including the first
data and a second data in response to the final access to the first data,” as
recited in dependent claim 6?
3
Appeal 2017-004432
Application 13/708,090
ANALYSIS
Claims 1, 14, 18, and 22 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over
the combination of AAPA and Bennett
Independent claim 1 recites “in response to a field of an instruction
indicating a final access to first data stored at a memory hierarchy of a
processor, discarding the first data from the memory hierarchy.”
The Examiner finds that AAPA indicates that it was known in the art,
at the time of the invention, to “spill” data that is accessed less frequently.
Non-Final Act. 2—3; Ans. 2—3. Thus, the Examiner finds that when the data
is “spilled,” it has been finally accessed. Non-Final Act. 2; Ans. 8. As a
result, the Examiner interprets the spill data as the final access data. Ans. 8.
Further, the Examiner finds that the spill code (instruction) to spill the less
frequently accessed data is the claimed field of instruction. Id.', see Spec. 1
2.
Appellants contend that AAPA teaches a spill code to spill less
frequently accessed data to a memory hierarchy, which is not the same as
final access to data because the spill data may be accessed again in the
future. App. Br. 4; Reply Br. 2. Additionally, Appellants argue that the
portion of Appellants’ Specification cited by the Examiner does not teach or
suggest a field of an instruction indicating a final access to data. App. Br. 4;
Reply Br. 2. We disagree with Appellants.
Appellants do not provide a specific definition for the claim term
“final access” either in the claims or Appellants’ Specification. As a result,
the Examiner interprets the term broadly to include data that is “spilled”
because it is infrequently used. We find this to be a reasonable
interpretation of the limitation that is consistent with Appellants’
4
Appeal 2017-004432
Application 13/708,090
Specification because spill data is data that has been finally accessed, for at
least that specific moment in time.
Because we agree with the Examiner that spill data is considered data
that is finally accessed, we also agree with the Examiner that the spill
instruction is the claimed “field of instruction” indicating the final access.
We agree with the Examiner (Ans. 8) because the spill instruction indicates
to the system that the data is to be moved from the processor’s registers to a
specific memory because it is data that has been finally accessed for a
particular process.4
Thus, for all of the reasons indicated above, we sustain the
Examiner’s rejection of independent claim 1. Appellants make the same
arguments with respect to independent claims 14 and 22 and do not argue
dependent claim 18 separately. Therefore, we sustain the rejection of
independent claims 14 and 22 and dependent claim 18 for the same reasons
indicated above with respect to claim 1.
Claims 2, 3, and 4 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over the
combination of AAPA and Bennett.
Dependent claim 2 recites “wherein the instruction comprises a load
instruction that results in a load access to the first data and the field stores a
4 Furthermore, although not used by the Examiner, we find that Bennett also
teaches the disputed limitation. Bennett specifically indicates that when data
is obsolete (i.e., no longer needed, has served its purpose, or has been finally
accessed) a flag (field of instruction) is set to have the data erased. See
Bennett, col. 2,113.
5
Appeal 2017-004432
Application 13/708,090
value identifying the load access as the final access.” Claims 3 and 4 depend
from claim 2.
Appellants argue that even if the spill data was loaded into the
memory hierarchy by a load instruction, there is no teaching or suggestion
that the load instruction includes a “field [that] stores a value identifying the
load access as the final access,” as required by claim 2. Id. We agree with
Appellants.
Although the Examiner’s findings that the combination of references
teaches a load instruction, the Examiner has failed to provide or identify
sufficient evidence or reasoning to support the finding that the load
instruction includes a “field [that] stores a value.” Non-Final Act. 3; Ans. 3,
8; see Spec. 12. Accordingly, we reverse the Examiner’s rejection claims 2,
3, and 4.
We, however, find that Bennett teaches setting a flag to indicate that
the data should be erased. See Non-Final Act. 3 (citing Bennet 114). We
find that the flag is a value identifying final access because the data is no
longer needed and will be erased. As our analysis deviates from the
Examiner’s rejection, we designate our analysis to be a new ground of
rejection of claim 2 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over AAPA and Bennett.
Because claim 3 was not argued separately with particularity, we also
designate a new ground of rejection of claim 3 for the same reasons as claim
2.
Claim 4 recites “automatically generating the load instruction at a
compiler in response to determining a source code instruction indicates the
final access to the first data.” Appellants argue that AAPA does not teach
that the spill code instruction is inserted in response to determining a source
6
Appeal 2017-004432
Application 13/708,090
code instruction indicates a final access to data. App. Br. 6; Reply
Br. 4. Appellants further argue that “spill code can mark data as less
frequently accessed without including in any particular instruction an
indication of final access to the data.” App. Br. 6; Reply Br. 4. However, as
noted above in the analysis for claim 1, we agree with the Examiner that less
frequently accessed spill data is considered data that is finally
accessed. Thus, we also agree with the Examiner (Non-Final Act. 3; Ans. 9)
that the spill instruction is the claimed source code instruction indicating the
final access because the spill instruction causes the less frequently access
data to be spilled, as indicated above with respect to claim 1.
Claim 4 is dependent upon claim 2. Therefore, we incorporate the
new rejection of claim 2 with the rejection of claim 4 and we designate
claim 4 as a new ground of rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over AAPA
and Bennett.
Claim 5 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over the combination
of AAPA, Bennett, and Ono.
Dependent claim 5 recites “determining the final access to the first
data further based upon a modification of a stack pointer that results in the
first data being removed from the stack.”
The Examiner finds that the combination of AAPA and Bennett
teaches determining final access to first data and removing that data, as
discussed above regarding claim 1. Non-Final Act. 4—5; Ans. 4, 9-10.
Further, the Examiner finds that Ono, teaches a stack pointer and a stack
pointer update system. Non-Final Act. 4—5; Ans. 4, 9-10.
Appellants contend that Ono teaches that a stack pointer can be
updated to add data to a stack, and fails to teach or suggest modification of a
7
Appeal 2017-004432
Application 13/708,090
stack pointer that results in data being removed from a stack, as provided by
claim 5. App. Br. 6; Reply Br. 4. Further, Appellants argue that Ono fails to
teach or suggest determining a final access to data based upon a
modification of a stack pointer. App. Br. 6; Reply Br. 4.
We do not find Appellants’ arguments persuasive. As the Examiner
finds, Ono teaches stack modification. Ans. 10; see Ono, Figs. 8A, 8B.
Appellants argue that Ono teaches adding to a stack (pushing onto a stack)
and does not teach removing data from a stack (popping off of a stack), as
required by the claim. App. Br. 6; Reply Br. 4. While, Appellant is correct
that Ono Figures 8A and 8B disclose pushing data onto a stack, Ono
generally teaches operations for stack modification including popping data
off of a stack. See Ono 17. Appellants have not presented any arguments
that explain why the Examiner’s findings regarding stack modification as
taught by Ono are in error. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s
rejection of dependent claim 5.
Claim 6 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over the combination
of AAPA and Bennett.
Dependent claim 6 recites “discarding a plurality of data including the
first data and a second data in response to the final access to the first data.”
The Examiner finds that AAPA, discloses spilling less frequently
accessed data, interpreting the spill data as the final access data. Non-Final
Act. 4; Ans. 3,10. Further, the Examiner finds that Bennett teaches
8
Appeal 2017-004432
Application 13/708,090
discarding a plurality of data. Non-Final Act. 4; Ans. 3,10; see Bennett,
Fig.10,11 136-139.
Appellants contend that AAPA teaches a spill code and does not teach
or suggest discarding first data and a second data in response to the final
access to the first data. App. Br. 6; Reply Br. 4—5. Further, Appellants
argue that Bennett fails to remedy the alleged deficiencies of the AAPA and
alone fails to teach or suggest discarding first data and a second data in
response to the final access to the first data. App. Br. 6; Reply Br. 4—5.
We do not find Appellants’ arguments persuasive as they attack the
references individually, and further because the arguments are conclusory.
As discussed above, the Examiner finds that AAPA discloses a spill code to
spill less frequently accessed data, interpreted as final access data, to the
memory hierarchy. Non-Final Act. 2—3; Ans. 2—3; see Spec. 12. Appellants
argue that AAPA does not teach discarding a plurality of data (App. Br. 6),
even though the Examiner relies on Bennett for that teaching. Ans. 10; see
also Bennett, Fig. 10,114. However, nonobviousness cannot be shown by
attacking references individually when the rejection is based on a
combination of references. In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981).
Further, Appellants summarily argue that the AAPA and Bennett, each do
not teach or suggest the limitations as recited in claim 6, without specifically
addressing the merits of the Examiner’s rejection and pointing out the
supposed error. App. Br. 6; Reply Br. 5; see 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(vii)
(noting that an argument that merely points out what a claim recites is
unpersuasive). Thus, we do not find Appellants’ argument persuasive.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of dependent claim 6.
9
Appeal 2017-004432
Application 13/708,090
Claims 7, 17, 19, and25 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over
the combination of AAPA, Bennett, and Ono.
Regarding claims 7, 17, 19, and 25, Appellants’ arguments present the
same issues discussed above with respect to independent claims 1,14, and
22. App. Br. 7. Therefore, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of these
claims for the reasons discussed supra with respect to claims 1,14, and 22.
Claims 8, 9, 20, and 21 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over
the combination of AAPA, Bennett, and Rahman.
Regarding claims 8, 9, 20, and 21, Appellants’ arguments present the
same issues discussed above with respect to independent claims 1,14, and
22. App. Br. 7. Therefore, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of these
claims for the reasons discussed supra with respect to claims 1,14, and 22.
Claims 15, 16, 23, and 24 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
obvious over the combination of AAPA, Bennett, and Scales.
Regarding claims 15, 16, 23, and 24, Appellants’ arguments present
the same issues discussed above with respect to independent claims 1, 14,
and 22. App. Br. 7. Therefore, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of these
claims for the reasons discussed supra with respect to claims 1,14, and 22.
New Ground of Rejection: Claims 22—25
Claims 22—25 are directed to a “computer readable medium.”
Appellants’ Specification, paragraph 39, states that
10
Appeal 2017-004432
Application 13/708,090
[a] computer readable storage medium may include any
storage medium, or combination of storage media, accessible by
a computer system during use to provide instructions and/or data
to the computer system. Such storage media can include, but is
not limited to, optical media (e.g., compact disc (CD), digital
versatile disc (DVD), BluRay disc), magnetic media (e.g., floppy
disc, magnetic tape, or magnetic hard drive), volatile memory
(e.g., random access memory (RAM) or cache), non-volatile
memory (e.g., read-only memory (ROM) or Flash memory), or
microelectromechanical systems (MEMS)-based storage media.
Thus, the term “computer readable medium” encompasses transitory signals.
Accordingly, claims 22—25 are directed to non-statutory subject matter and
are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101. See In reNuijten, 500 F.3d 1346 (Fed.
Cir. 2007); see also Ex parte Mewherter, 107 USPQ2d 1857, 1862 (PTAB
2013) (precedential) (“The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim
drawn to a computer readable medium (also called machine readable
medium and other such variations) typically covers forms of nontransitory
tangible media and transitory propagating signals per se in view of the
ordinary and customary meaning of computer readable media, particularly
when the specification is silent.”)). We designate our analysis to be a new
ground of rejection.
CONCLUSION
The Examiner did not err in finding the Applicant Admitted Prior Art
teaches or suggests “a field of an instruction indicating a final access to first
data stored at a memory hierarchy of a processor,” as recited in independent
claim 1, and similarly required in independent claims 14 and 22.
11
Appeal 2017-004432
Application 13/708,090
The Examiner erred in finding the combination of Applicant Admitted
Prior Art (AAPA) and Bennett teaches or suggests “a load instruction that
results in a load access to the first data,” as recited in dependent claim 2.
The Examiner did not err in finding the combination of AAPA,
Bennett, and Ono teaches or suggests “determining the final access to the
first data further based upon a modification of a stack pointer that results in
the first data being removed from the stack,” as recited in dependent claim 5.
The Examiner did not err in finding the combination of AAPA and
Bennett teaches or suggests “discarding a plurality of data including the first
data and a second data in response to the final access to the first data,” as
recited in dependent claim 6.
DECISION
The Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1, 6, 14, 18, and 22 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over the combination of AAPA and Bennett is
affirmed.
The Examiner’s decision to reject claims 2, 3, and 4 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over the combination of AAPA and Bennett is
reversed.
The Examiner’s decision to reject claims 5, 7, 17, 19, and 25 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over the combination of AAPA, Bennett, and
Ono is affirmed.
The Examiner’s decision to reject claims 8, 9, 20, and 21 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over the combination of AAPA, Bennett, and
Rahman is affirmed.
12
Appeal 2017-004432
Application 13/708,090
The Examiner’s decision to reject claims 15, 16, 23, and 24 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over the combination of AAPA, Bennett, and
Scales is affirmed.
We enter a New Ground of Rejection for claims 2-4 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as obvious over the combination of AAPA and Bennett and claims
22—25 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as containing non-statutory subject matter.
TIME PERIOD
This decision contains new grounds of rejection pursuant to 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.50(b). 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) provides "[a] new ground of rejection
pursuant to this paragraph shall not be considered final for judicial review."
37 CFR § 41.50(b) also provides that the appellant, WITHIN TWO
MONTHS FROM THE DATE OF THE DECISION, must exercise one of
the following two options with respect to the new ground of rejection to
avoid termination of the appeal as to the rejected claims:
(1) Reopen prosecution. Submit an appropriate amendment of
the claims so rejected or new evidence relating to the claims so
rejected, or both, and have the matter reconsidered by the examiner, in
which event the proceeding will be remanded to the examiner. . . .
(2) Request rehearing. Request that the proceeding be reheard
under § 41.52 by the Board upon the same record ....
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l)(iv).
AFFIRMED-IN-PART; 37 C.F.R, $ 41.50(b)
13