Ex Parte Chen et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

May 25, 2016

12697175 (P.T.A.B. May. 25, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
12/697,175 01129/2010
48233 7590 05/27/2016
SCULLY, SCOTT, MURPHY & PRESSER, P,C
400 GARDEN CITY PLAZA
SUITE 300
GARDEN CITY, NY 11530
Dong Chen
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.
YOR920090645US 1
(24873)
1470
EXAMINER
ROCHE, JOHN B
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2184
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/27/2016 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):
IBMPAIRENotify@ssmp.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte DONG CHEN, NOEL A. EISLEY,
and PHILIP HEIDELBERGER
Appeal2014-006613
Application 12/697,175 1
Technology Center 2100
Before CARLA M. KRIVAK, KEVIN C. TROCK,
and AARON W. MOORE, Administrative Patent Judges.
TROCK, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Introduction
Appellants seek review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
Final Rejection of claims 1-18 and 20-26, which constitute all the claims
pending in this application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.
1 Appellants indicate the real party in interest is the International Business
Machines Corporation. App. Br. 2.
Appeal2014-006613
Application 12/697,175
Invention
The claims are directed to routing data packets in a computing system
comprising a multidimensional torus compute node network including a
multitude of compute nodes, and an I/O node network including a plurality
of I/O nodes. Abstract.
Exemplary Claim
Exemplary claim 1 is reproduced below with disputed limitations
emphasized:
1. A method of routing data packets in a computing system
comprising a multidimensional torus compute node network
including a multitude of compute nodes, and an I/O node
network including a plurality of I/O nodes, the method
compnsmg:
assigning to each of the data packets a destination
address identifying one of the compute nodes as a destination
node of said each data packet;
providing each of the data packets with a toio value to
determine to route selectively said each data packet from said
destination address to one of the 110 nodes or to the destination
node of said each data packet; and
routing the data packets through the compute node
network to the destination addresses of the data packets,
including
at the destination address of each of the data packets,
when the toio value of said each data packet is a first specified
value, receiving said each data packet at the destination node
of said each data packet; and when the toio value of said each
data packet has a second specified value, further routing said
each data packet from said destination address to one of the 110
nodes.
2
Appeal2014-006613
Application 12/697,175
Rejections
The Examiner relies on the following prior art in rejecting the claims:
Claims 1, 6-8, 11, 14, 16, 20, 21, 24, and 25 stand rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Wicki et al. (US 5,959,995,
issued Sept. 28, 1999) and Oi et al. (US 2003/0007493 Al, published Jan. 9,
2003).
Claims 2--4, 12-13, 17, 18, and 22 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Wicki, Oi, and Sastry et al. (US
5,987,629, issued Nov. 16, 1999).
Claims 5 and 23 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Wicki, Oi, and Rowlands et al. (US 2004/0034747 Al,
published Feb. 19, 2004).
Claims 9, 10, and 15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Wicki, Oi, and Blumrich et al. (US 2008/0091842 Al,
published Apr. 17, 2008).
Claim 26 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Wicki, Oi, and Gilbert (US 5,752,068, issued Mayl2,
1998).
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed Appellants' arguments in the Briefs, the
Examiner's rejection, and the Examiner's response to Appellants'
arguments. We concur with Appellants' conclusion that the Examiner erred
in finding the combination of the references teaches or suggests "providing
each of the data packets with a toio value to determine to route selectively
said each data packet from said destination address to one of the I/O nodes
3
Appeal2014-006613
Application 12/697,175
or to the destination node of said each data packet; and ... at the destination
address of each of the data packets, when the toio value of said each data
packet is a first specified value, receiving said each data packet at the
destination node of said each data packet; and when the toio value of said
each data packet has a second specified value, further routing said each data
packet from said destination address to one of the I/O nodes," as recited in
independent claim 1 and similarly recited in independent claims 11, 16, and
21. We highlight specific findings and argument for emphasis as follows.
Appellants contend the Examiner erred in rejecting independent
claims 1, 11, 16, and 21, because the combination of Wicki and Oi does not
teach or suggest providing each data packet with a separate "toio value"
which is used to determine at the destination address of the data packet
whether to route the data packet from the destination address to either a
destination node or to an I/O node. App. Br. 15.
The Examiner finds Wicki teaches a method of routing data packets in
a computing system comprising:
providing each of the data packets data packets with a toio value
to determine to route selectively said each data packet from said
destination address to another nodes or to the destination node of
said each data packet (routing information 318 indicates
predetermined path from source processor node 102 to
destination processor node 102, see figure 6 and column 7, line
67 - column 8, line 3; valid link code provides the frame to the
next link in the route, column 8, lines 14-19; if the code for the
next link is for a non-existent link number, the link provides the
frame to the destination processor node, column 8, lines 16-22) .
. . including at the destination address of each of the data packets,
when the toio value of said each data packet is a first specified
value, receiving said each data packet at the destination node of
said each data packet (if the code for the next link is for a non-
existent link number, the link provides the frame to the
4
Appeal2014-006613
Application 12/697,175
destination processor node, column 8, lines 16-22); and when the
toio value of said each data packet has a second specified value,
further routing said each data packet from said destination
address to another node (valid link code provides the frame to
the next link in the route, column 8, lines 14-19).
Final Act. 3.
The Examiner also finds Wicki does not explicitly teach routing being
to one of the I/O nodes. Id. The Examiner finds, however, that Oi teaches:
providing each of the data packets with a toio value to route
selectively said each data packet from said destination address to
one of the I/O nodes or the destination node of said each data
packet (destination node ID field 10 indicates ID of the node that
receives the message, such as P node 110 or I/O node 120, see
figure 2 and paragraph 24, lines 2-4); and at the destination
address of each of the data packets, when the toio value of said
each data packet has a second specified value, routing said each
data packet from said destination address to one of the I/O nodes
(when a transaction is intended for an I/O node, or when the I/O
bit indicates that it is an I/O transaction in nature, the transaction
rout[e]s said transaction through interdomain cables, see figure
6, steps 640-650 and paragraph 32, lines 7-10).
Final Act. 3, 4.
The Examiner states that:
It would not be excessively burdensome to envision a system
where Wicki and Oi could be combined to detennine the final
destination of the packet as well as the next destination node, and
to determine whether the destination of the packet is the intended
delivery point of the data payload, based on the values of given
parameters contained within the packet/frame.
Ans. 16.
Appellants argue Wicki uses routing information 318 to route data
packets from one node to another and to the destination node of the packet.
Reply Br. 7. This routing information, Appellants argue, is not used to
determine, at the address of the destination node, whether the destination
5
Appeal2014-006613
Application 12/697,175
node receives the data packet or whether the data packet is routed to another
I/O node. Id. Appellants also argue that Oi' s I/O bit identifies the source of
the data packet and is used to determine which routing table to use to route
the data packet. Reply Br. 8. This contrasts, Appellants argue, with the
claimed "toio value" which is used, at the address of the destination node, to
determine where to route the data packet from the destination address, either
to the packet's destination node or to one of the I/O nodes. Id.
In rejecting claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103, it is incumbent upon the
Examiner to establish a factual basis to support the legal conclusion of
obviousness. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 1073 (Fed. Cir. 1988). To
establish prima facie obviousness of a claimed invention, all the claim
limitations must be taught or suggested by the prior art. See In re Royka,
490 F.2d 981, 985 (CCPA 1974).
Here, the Examiner has not clearly shown how all the limitations of
claim 1 are taught or suggested by the prior art. Claim 1 requires "providing
each of the data packets with a toio value to determine to route selectively
said each data packet from said destination address to one of the I/O nodes
or to the destination node" and routing the data packets such that "at the
destination address of each of the data packets, when the toio value of said
each data packet is a first specified value, receiving said each data packet at
the destination node of said each data packet; and when the toio value of
said each data packet has a second specified value, further routing said each
data packet from said destination address to one of the I/O nodes."
(Emphasis added).
The Examiner has not adequately explained how Wicki' s routing
information 318 or Wicki' s code links teach or suggest the recited "toio
6
Appeal2014-006613
Application 12/697,175
value" such that a determination is made "at the destination address of each
of the data packets, when the toio value of said each data packet is a first
specified value, receiving said each data packet at the destination node of
said each data packet; and when the toio value of said each data packet has a
second specified value, further routing said each data packet from said
destination address to one of the I/O nodes." Similarly, the Examiner has
not adequately explained how Oi' s destination node ID field 10 or Oi' s I/O
bit teaches or suggests the recited "toio value" such that a determination is
made "at the destination address of each of the data packets, when the toio
value of said each data packet is a first specified value, receiving said each
data packet at the destination node of said each data packet; and when the
toio value of said each data packet has a second specified value, further
routing said each data packet from said destination address to one of the I/O
nodes."
In particular, the Examiner has not mapped any specific teaching or
suggestion in either Wicki or Oi to determining "at the destination address of
each of the data packets" whether to receive the data packet at the
destination node when a first toio value is specified or whether to further
route the data packet to one of the I/O nodes when a second toio value is
specified. See Final Act. 2--4; Ans. 14--16.
Accordingly, based on this record, we do not sustain the Examiner's
finding that the combination of Wicki and Oi teaches or suggests all the
limitations of independent claim 1, as well as independent claims 11, 16, and
21. Accordingly, we also do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of
dependent claims 2-10, 12-15, 17, 18, 20, and 22-26 for the same reasons.
7
Appeal2014-006613
Application 12/697,175
DECISION
We REVERSE the Examiner's rejection of claims 1-18 and 20-26.
REVERSED
8