Ex Parte Cardona et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 22, 2016

12396257 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 22, 2016)

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.
12/396,257 03/02/2009 Omar Cardona AUS920080587US1 5941
45502 7590
Yudell Isidore PLLC
10601 RR2222, Ste. Rill
Austin, TX 78730
12/27/2016 EXAMINER
LINDLOF, JOHN M
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2183
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/27/2016 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@yudellisidore.com
eofficeaction @ appcoll.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte OMAR CARDONA, JAMES BRIAN CUNNINGHAM,
BALTAZAR DELEON III, and MATTHEW RYAN OCHS
Appeal 2016-001049
Application 12/396,257
Technology Center 2100
Before BRUCE R. WINSOR, WILLIAM M. FINK, and
JOSEPH P. LENTIVECH, Administrative Patent Judges.
WINSOR, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the final rejection
of claims 1, 3—7, 9, 10, 12, 13, 15, 16, 18, 20, 22, and 24. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). Claims 2, 8, 11, 14, and 17, are
cancelled. Br. (Claims App’x) 17, 19, 20. Claims 19, 21, 23, and 25 are
indicated to be allowable over the prior art of record. See Ans. 2.
We affirm.
1 The real party in interest identified by Appellants is International Business
Machines Corporation. Br. 2.
Appeal 2016-001049
Application 12/396,257
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants’ “disclosure relates to an improved data processing
system. In particular, the . . . disclosure relates to a logically partitioned data
processing system.- More specifically, the . . . disclosure relates to
circumventing copying/mapping in a virtual network environment.” Spec.
11. Claims 1, 4, and 20, which are illustrative, are reproduced below.
1. A computer-implemented method for circumventing data
copy operations in a virtual network environment, said method
comprising:
copying a data packet from a user space to a first kernel
space of a first logical partition (LPAR), wherein said data packet
is intended to reach a receiving virtual Ethernet driver of a
second LPAR , wherein said first LPAR and said second LPAR
are virtual operating system instances contained within a same
physical data processing system;
requesting, via a hypervisor, a first mapped address of said
receiving virtual Ethernet driver in said second LPAR , wherein
said first mapped address is associated with a receive data buffer
of said receiving virtual Ethernet driver;
mapping, to said receive data buffer of said receiving
virtual Ethernet driver, a second mapped address that is
associated with a physical transmit buffer of a physical Ethernet
driver of a shared physical Ethernet adapter, wherein said shared
physical Ethernet adapter is shared by a plurality of logical
partitions including at least said first and second LPARs;
copying said data packet directly from said first kernel
space of said first LPAR to a destination in a second kernel space
of said second LPAR by bypassing said hypervisor, wherein said
destination is determined utilizing said first mapped address; and
performing a call via said physical Ethernet driver to
notify said receiving virtual Ethernet driver that said data packet
has been successfully copied to said destination in said second
LPAR.
2
Appeal 2016-001049
Application 12/396,257
4. The computer-implemented method of Claim 1, wherein
said receiving virtual Ethernet driver includes a Direct Data
Buffer (DDB) pool having at least one DDB.
20. The computer-implemented method of Claim 4, further
comprising:
copying said data packet directly from said first kernel
space of said first LPAR to said second mapped address, wherein
said second mapped address is a memory location in said
physical Ethernet driver referenced by said DDB; and
performing a call to said shared physical Ethernet adapter
to notify said receiving virtual Ethernet driver of said second
LPAR that said copying of said data packet to said second
mapped address was successful.
Claims 1, 3—7, 9, 10, 12, 13, 15, 16, 18, 20, 22, and 24 stand rejected
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Baskey et al. (US
2002/0129082 Al; Sept. 12, 2002) (hereinafter “Baskey”) in view of
Baumberger (US 2005/0114855 Al; May 26, 2005). See Final Act. 2—6.
The rejection of claims 19, 21, 23, and 25 over Baskey and
Baumberger (see Final Act. 5—6) is withdrawn. See Ans. 2.
Rather than repeat the arguments here, we refer to the Appeal Brief
(“Br.” filed May 1, 2014) and the Specification (“Spec.” filed Mar. 2, 2009)
for the positions of Appellants and the Final Office Action (“Final Act.”
mailed Oct. 16, 2013) and Answer (“Ans.” mailed Aug. 29, 2014) for the
reasoning, findings, and conclusions of the Examiner. Only those arguments
actually made by Appellants have been considered in this decision.
Arguments that Appellants did not make in the Briefs have not been
considered and are deemed to be waived. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv)
(2013).
3
Appeal 2016-001049
Application 12/396,257
ISSUES
All rejected claims are subject to a single ground of rejection. See
Final Act. 2. Appellants argue the patentability of claims 1, 3—7, 9, 10, 12,
13, 15, 16, and 18 together. See Br. 9-10. Appellants argue claims 20, 22,
and 24 together. See Br. 13—14. Therefore, we select claims 1 and 20 as the
representative claims, pursuant to our authority under 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(l)(iv). The issues presented by Appellants’ arguments are as
follows:
Does the Examiner err in finding the combination of Baskey and
Baumberger teaches or suggests
mapping, to said receive data buffer of said receiving virtual
Ethernet driver, a second mapped address that is associated with
a physical transmit buffer of a physical Ethernet driver of a
shared physical Ethernet adapter, wherein said shared physical
Ethernet adapter is shared by a plurality of logical partitions
including at least said first and second LPARs[,]
as recited in claim 1?
Does the Examiner err in finding the combination of Baskey and
Baumberger teaches or suggests “performing a call to said shared physical
Ethernet adapter to notify said receiving virtual Ethernet driver of said
second LPAR that said copying of said data packet to said second mapped
address was successfully” as recited in claim 20?
ANALYSIS
Claim 1
Appellants contend as follows:
Baumberger provides mapping transmit/receive buffers of two
virtual Ethernet adapters to a same DMA buffer or a physical
memory element. However, Baumberger provides that virtual
4
Appeal 2016-001049
Application 12/396,257
network interfaces of two VMs are actually un-mapped from
physical network interfaces and are instead mapped to a shared
physical memory when the two VMs are attempting to
communicate. . . .
In contrast to the described mapping virtual adapters to a
same physical memory, as provided by Baumberger, Appellants'
claim 1 provides mapping an address associated with a physical
transmit buffer of a shared physical Ethernet adapter to a receive
data buffer of a virtual Ethernet driver. Additionally, the
mapping of a physical transmit buffer of a shared physical
Ethernet adapter to a receive data buffer of a virtual Ethernet
driver claimed by Appellants' claim 1 is performed in order to
facilitate communication between two logical partitions.
Br. 9-10 (discussing Baumberger H 20, 26).
Appellants’ argument is unpersuasive because it fails to address the
combination of Baskey and Baumberger. As pointed out by the Examiner,
“one cannot show non-obviousness by attacking references individually
where, as here, the rejections are based on combinations of references,” In re
Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 426 (CCPA 1981); see also In re Merck & Co., 800
F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986). See Ans. 7.
The Examiner finds that Baskey teaches a shared physical Ethernet
adapter. Final Act 3 (citing Baskey 114). The Examiner explains that
Baskey teaches avoiding processing overhead by passing messages directly
between memory spaces of partitions of a computing system. Ans. 7 (citing
Baskey 121). Baumberger teaches a shared physical device 390.
Baumberger, Fig. 3. Baumberger further teaches communicating between
virtual memories through passing messages between virtual memory spaces
by re-mapping memory elements from one location to another, including
remapping between virtual and physical memory elements. Baumberger
120; see also id. 130. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would have
5
Appeal 2016-001049
Application 12/396,257
learned from Baumberger to communicate between memory spaces, whether
physical or virtual, by re-mapping the memory elements, and would have
learned from Baskey to re-map so that messages are transferred directly
from an originating memory space to an intended destination memory space.
Based on these teachings, we agree with the Examiner that one of ordinary
skill in the art would have learned from the combination of Baskey and
Baumberger
mapping, to said receive data buffer of said receiving virtual
Ethernet driver, a second mapped address that is associated with
a physical transmit buffer of a physical Ethernet driver of a
shared physical Ethernet adapter, wherein said shared physical
Ethernet adapter is shared by a plurality of logical partitions
including at least said first and second LPARs[,]
as recited in claim 1. We note that the specific buffers (i.e., memory
locations) are no more than recitations of an originating memory space and
an intended destination memory space. Appellants have not shown that such
communication among the various recited buffers by mapping is “uniquely
challenging or difficult for one of ordinary skill in the art.” Leapfrog
Enters., Inc. v. Fisher-Price, Inc., 485 F.3d 1157, 1162 (Fed. Cir. 2007)
(citing KSR Int 7 Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 419 (2007)).
Appellants contend Baumberger teaches away from the recited
invention. Br. 10. To teach away, a reference must actually “criticize,
discredit, or otherwise discourage” investigation into the claimed solution.
In re Fulton, 391 F.3d 1195, 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2004). The passages discussed
by Appellants (Baumberger || 20, 26) at most establish that Baumberger,
standing alone, does not teach the claimed invention. We see nothing in
those passages that would lead a skilled artisan away from combining the
teachings of Baumberger with those of Berger. See Ans. 7.
6
Appeal 2016-001049
Application 12/396,257
Appellants do not persuade us of error in the rejection of
representative claim 1. Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of
representative claim 1 and claims 3—7, 9, 10, 12, 13, 15, 16, and 18, which
fall with claim 1.
Claim 20
Appellants contend as follows:
Baumberger and the combination of references as a whole
fails to disclose or suggest any issuing a call to a physical
Ethernet adapter that informs a virtual Ethernet adapter of a
second logical partition that copying of a packet from a kernel
space in a first logical partition to a kernel space in the
second logical partition has completed.
Br. 14. We are not persuaded of error.
As pointed out by the Examiner, although the argument mentions “the
combination of references as a whole” (id.), Appellants’ actual argument
only addresses Baumberger, and does not address what one of ordinary skill
in the art would learn from Baumberger, when combined with Baskey. See
Ans. 8 (citing Keller, 642 F.2d 413; Merck, 800 F.2d 1091).
The Examiner relies on the combined teachings of Baumberger and
Baskey. The Examiner explains as follows:
The combination [of Baskey and Baumberger] would have been
obvious as described in the grounds of rejection. Appellant’s
specification (see e.g. specification para. [0034]) generically
uses the term “call” to cause a notification to occur. The prior
art relied upon teaches causing a notification to occur due to
successful copying of data (see e.g. Baskey para. [0076], a
notification is given that the data has been moved), whereby such
a notification can be given by a physical Ethernet adapter (see
e.g. Baumberger para. [0027], TDT [(Transmit Descriptor Tail)
register] of a physical Ethernet adapter indicates data has been
written).
7
Appeal 2016-001049
Application 12/396,257
Ans. 8. We find the Examiner’s explanation to be reasonable, supported by
the evidence of record, and un-rebutted.
Appellants do not persuade us of error in the rejection of
representative claim 20. Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of
representative claim 20 and claims 22 and 24, which fall with claim 20.
DECISION
The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1, 3—7, 9, 10, 12, 13, 15,
16, 18, 20, 22, and 24 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)(1). See 37 C.F.R.
§§ 41.50(f), 41.52(b).
AFFIRMED
8