Ex Parte Cuadra et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardAug 30, 201613360581 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 30, 2016) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 13/360,581 01127/2012 102324 7590 09/01/2016 Artegis Law Group, LLP/NVIDIA 7710 Cherry Park Drive Suite T #104 Houston, TX 77095 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Philip Alexander CUADRA 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. NVDA/SC-11-0311-US 1 4058 EXAMINER ALFRED, MELISSA A ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2199 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 09/01/2016 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): kcruz@artegislaw.com ALGdocketing@artegislaw.com mmccauley@artegislaw.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte PHILIP ALEXANDER CUADRA, LACKY V. SHAH, TIMOTHY JOHN PURCELL, GERALD F. LUIZ, and JEROME F. DULUK JR. Appeal2015-005958 Application 13/360,581 1 Technology Center 2100 Before CARLA M. KRIVAK, KEVIN C. TROCK, and JOHN R. KENNY, 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 1-24. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ). We AFFIRM. 1 Appellants indicate the Real Party in Interest is NVIDIA Corporation. App. Br. 3. Appeal2015-005958 Application 13/360,581 Invention The claims are directed to automatic launching of a dependent task when execution of a first task completes. Abstract. Exemplary Claim Exemplary claim 1 is reproduced below with disputed limitations emphasized: 1. A computer-implemented method of automatically launching a dependent task, the method comprising: receiving a notification that a first thread group in a plurality of thread groups that are associated with a first processing task has completed execution in a multi-threaded system; reading a dependent task enable flag that is stored in first task metadata, wherein the dependent task enable flag is written prior to execution of the first thread group; determining that the dependent task enable flag indicates that a dependent task should be executed \x1hen execution of the first thread group is complete; and scheduling the dependent task for execution in the multi- threaded system, wherein compute processing tasks to be executed in association with the first processing task are encoded as task metadata and included in the first task metadata. Rejections Claims 1, 13, and 21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Duluk (US 7,697,007 Bl; Apr. 13, 2010). 2 Appeal2015-005958 Application 13/360,581 Claims 2-11, 14--20, and 22-24 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Duluk and Anderson et al. (US 5,613,114; Mar. 18, 1997). Claim 12 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Duluk and Alizadeh et al. (WO 2012/121,713 Al; publ. Sep. 13, 2012). ANALYSIS We have reviewed the Examiner's rejections and the evidence of record in light of Appellants' arguments that the Examiner has erred. We disagree with Appellants' arguments and conclusions. We adopt as our own, ( 1) the findings and reasons set forth by the Examiner in the Office Action from which this appeal is taken and (2) the findings and reasons set forth in the Examiner's Answer. We concur with the conclusions reached by the Examiner and further highlight specific findings and argument for emphasis as follows. Independent Claims 1, 13, and 21 Appellants contend the Examiner erred in rejecting independent claims 1, 13, and 21under35 U.S.C. § 103(a) because Duluk fails to teach or suggest "wherein compute processing tasks to be executed in association with the first processing task are encoded as task metadata" and "wherein the dependent task enable flag is written prior to execution of the first thread group." App. Br. 10-13; Reply Br. 5-8. Appellants argue that "compute processing tasks" involve units of execution, such as computer programs or program code, and that Duluk's "state information" defining a CTA (cooperative thread array) is different 3 Appeal2015-005958 Application 13/360,581 than "encoding a unit of execution or a task as task metadata." App. Br. 11. "State information," Appellants argue, may define some aspect of a CTA, but it is not a "compute processing task." App. Br. 11; Reply Br. 6. The Examiner asserts that Appellants are interpreting the disputed claim language as restricting the encoded task metadata to units of execution. Ans. 22. The Examiner concludes, however, that the broadest reasonable interpretation of the disputed limitation would include encoding identifying information related to the compute processing tasks. Id. The Examiner supports this interpretation using the Specification, which states in pertinent part, [a ]t the time when the original task is encoded the original task includes the information associated with the dependent task. Therefore, the information is already known and available when the original task is executed. Additionally, the dependent task may include information associated with a second dependent task that will be automatically executed following execution of the dependent task. Ans. 23 (citing Spec. i173). Claims are to be given their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification, reading claim language in light of the specification as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art. In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004). The Specification explains that the original task includes information associated with the dependent task so that the information is already known and available when the original task is executed. Spec. i1i1 8, 73. One of ordinary skill in the art would, therefore, understand that encoded task metadata would include such task related information. Moreover, although not cited by the Examiner, the Specification also 4 Appeal2015-005958 Application 13/360,581 explains that "Processing tasks that may be encoded as TivIDs [task metadata] include indices of data to be processed, as well as state parameters and commands defining how the data is to be processed (e.g., what program is to be executed)." Spec. i-f 27 (emphasis added). Duluk's state information defining a cooperative thread array (CT A), is encompassed by this description. See Duluk, col. 4, 11. 33-54. Thus, Appellants' proffered interpretation, which restricts encoded task metadata to units of execution and excludes task related information, is inconsistent with the Specification and is improperly narrow. Appellants also argue that Duluk's launch enable command 410(2), which Appellants contend the Examiner has mapped to the claimed dependent task enable flag, is not written prior to execution of the first thread group. App. Br. 12. Appellants argue the launch enable command 410(2) reads the result generated by controlling CT A 310 and then determines whether to execute launch command 410(3 ). Id. Thus, Appellants argue, no dependent task enable flag is written prior to execution of the first thread. App. Br. 12; Reply Br. 7. The Examiner finds, however, Duluk teaches a controlling process that can be part of a CTA array. Ans. 26 (citing Duluk, col. 4, 11. 10---18). The Examiner also finds the controlling process may enable or disable the launching of subsequent threads. Ans. 26 (citing Duluk, col. 1, 11. 54---65). Duluk explains: Within pushbuffer 150, a launch command for a controlling process (e.g., CTA) 310 is followed by a launch command for a predicated process (e.g., CTA) 320. For the sake of clarity, only a single controlling CTA 310 and a single predicated CTA 320 are depicted in pushbuffer 150, although pushbuffer 150 may 5 Appeal2015-005958 Application 13/360,581 include any number of controlling CT As and predicated CT As, in virtually any order. Duluk col. 6, 11. 11-17. The Examiner therefore concludes because the second process is part of the same thread group, the enable command is set prior to the execution of the first thread group. Ans. 26. We agree with the Examiner. Moreover, Appellants' argument is not persuasive because it conflates determining whether to execute a launch command with writing a dependent task enable flag prior to execution of a first thread group. The claim merely requires that the dependent task enable flag be written prior to execution of the first thread group. It does not require determining whether the dependent task enable flag indicates that a dependent task should be executed until after the execution of the first thread group is complete. Duluk' s consideration of the result of a first process does not mean the enable command for the second process was not written prior to the execution of the first thread group. Therefore, we agree with the Examiner's findings that Duluk teaches or suggests "wherein compute processing tasks to be executed in association with the first processing task are encoded as task metadata" and "wherein the dependent task enable flag is written prior to execution of the first thread group," as recited in independent claim 1, and as similarly recited in independent claims 13 and 21. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of independent claims 1, 13, and 21under35 U.S.C. § 103(a). Remaining Claims 2-12, 14-20, and 22-24 Appellants have not presented separate, substantive, persuasive arguments with respect to the remaining claims 2-12, 14--20, and 22-24. See App. Br. 10-13. As such, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in 6 Appeal2015-005958 Application 13/360,581 rejecting these claims. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv); In re Lovin, 652 F.3d 1349, 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2011) ("We conclude that the Board has reasonably interpreted Rule 41.3 7 to require applicants to articulate more substantive arguments if they wish for individual claims to be treated separately."). Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of claims 2- 12, 14--20, and 22-24 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). DECISION We AFFIRM the Examiner's rejection of claims 1-24. 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 7 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation