UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
14/160,552 01122/2014
108570 7590 05/08/2018
Park, Vaughan, Fleming & Dowler LLP
Anthony Jones
3678 Hastings Ct
Lafayette, CA 94549
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Stephan Diestelhorst
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.
6872-120249 5269
EXAMINER
SNYDER, STEVEN G
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2184
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/08/2018 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):
tony@parklegal.com
victoria@parklegal.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte STEPHAN DIESTELHORST,
MARTIN T. POHLACK, and MICHAEL P. HORMUTH
(Applicant: ADVANCED MICRO DEVICES, INC.)
Appeal2017-004252
Application 14/160,552
Technology Center 2100
Before ALLEN R. MacDONALD, BETH Z. SHAW, and
AMBER L. HAGY, Administrative Patent Judges.
HAGY, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant 1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
Non-Final Rejection of claims 1-20. (App. Br. 3.) Claims 1-20 are
pending. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We AFFIRM.
1 References herein to "Appellant" are to the applicant Advanced Micro
Devices, Inc., who is also identified in the Appeal Brief as the real party in
interest. (App. Br. 1.)
Appeal2017-004252
Application 14/160,552
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The claims are directed to handling reads following transactional
writes during transactions in a computing device. (Spec. i-f 1.)
Exemplary Claim
Claims 1, 9, and 15 are independent. Claim 1, reproduced below, is
exemplary of the claimed subject matter:
1. A method for handling cache blocks during a transaction
in a computing device, comprising:
in a processor, performing operations for:
after a first entity writes to a cache block in a
cache during the transaction, responding to a read request
for the cache block from a second entity with a copy of
the cache block in a pre-transactional state, wherein
results from executing program code during the
transaction are prevented from being accessed by other
entities in the computing device until the transaction is
committed; and
continuing the transaction for the first entity after
responding to the read request.
References
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Shavit et al. ("Shavit")
Adl-Tabatabai et al. ("Adl-
Tabatabai")
US 8,037,476 Bl
US 2011/0145512 Al
Rejections
Oct. 11, 2011
June 16, 2011
Claims 1-20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Shavit and Adl-Tabatabai. (Non-Final Act. 3-21.)
2
Appeal2017-004252
Application 14/160,552
ISSUE
Whether Shavit discloses "after a first entity writes to a cache block in
a cache during the transaction, responding to a read request for the cache
block from a second entity with a copy of the cache block in a
pretransactional state," and "continuing the transaction for the first entity
after responding to the read request," as recited in independent claim 1 and
commensurately recited in independent claims 9 and 15 (emphases added).
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner's rejections in light of Appellant's
arguments the Examiner has erred. We disagree with Appellant's assertions
and we adopt as our own the findings and reasons set forth by the Examiner
in the Answer as well as in the Non-Final Action from which this appeal is
taken. We highlight the following for emphasis. 2
Independent Claims 1, 9, and 15
Appellant argues the Examiner erred in rejecting independent claims
1, 9, and 15 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Shavit and
Adl-Tabatabai. (App. Br. 10-14.) In particular, Appellant argues "Shavit
does not describe or suggest operations occurring 'during a transaction'
such as in independent claims 1, 9, and 15." (Id. at 10.) Appellant argues
the Examiner's findings regarding Shavit's teaching of allowing reads of a
copy of a cache block are premised on Shavit' s disclosure of "log-based
synchronization," in which, as Appellant contends, "there are no transactions
allowed"; rather, "all transactions are aborted before log-based
synchronization can start." (Id. at 12 (emphasis omitted).) According to
2 Only those arguments made by Appellant have been considered in this
decision. Arguments Appellant did not make have not been considered and
are deemed to be waived. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv).
3
Appeal2017-004252
Application 14/160,552
Appellant, Shavit does not disclose a second entity accessing a copy of the
cache block "during the transaction." (Id. at 12.) Appellant also asserts
Shavit does not disclose "continuing the transaction for the first entity after
responding to the read request," as recited in these claims, because there is
no transaction to be continued-that is, "Shavit does not describe operations
performed during transactions." (Id. at 13 (emphases added).)
We disagree with Appellant's characterization of Shavit. As the
Examiner finds, and we agree, "[ t ]he fact that logs are used to store slave
operations during the master session and later used to update and
synchronize the copies of the shared object does not change the fact that
Shavit also discloses a master operation including a write and a slave read
occurring during the master operation." (Id. at 20 (emphasis added).)
Shavit's log-based operation, as depicted in Figure lb reproduced below,
discloses the master performing operations on a shared data object during a
"session," in which a "non-master" ("slave") concurrently reads a pre-
transactional version of the shared data object:
~- ---------------~------------------- --------~L• • • • •- --LLLLL--------
1 Two Vcrsiom Of Sh.red Daia Objctainc<8k•n Are Perfrmnerl By !
: The Mas~r Thread To A first V crsion Of !
i The Shared Dsta Ohjecl IDA i
I ·····-·-·J
I
···········---- ... ~'>,.,. ............... -····---·--···
Non-Mastet Threads R~ad Jn A Non-
! Blncki1tg Manfll:'S' From A 8rn..hl.;:o Sexmd
i V~rsmn Of The Shonod Dola ObJe
>.1'.. .... K.::// ···············~-
l ..................................... :···········································:
4
Appeal2017-004252
Application 14/160,552
Figure 1 b of Shavit, reproduced above, is a "flow diagram illustrating
aspects of the operation of the mechanism for coordinating concurrent
accesses," according to one embodiment. (Shavit 3:43--45.)
As illustrated in the flow chart of Shavit's Figure 1 b, by depicting
boxes 193A and 193B side-by-side, Shavit discloses master data access
operations occurring concurrently during a "session" with the non-masters'
(slaves') reading from a stable second version of the shared data object.
(See also Shavit 4:27-29, 10:4--9.) Shavit further makes this explicit in
Figure 2, reproduced below, which depicts master and slave access to shared
data objects over time and within individual sessions:
Ma~ter 1258
Acqum,,-s Lock,
Synchronizes
A&B
Master l25B
Chru.iges ML>; ,
I Slaves Read From "B" And Log !
I Reads And Writ~{;; i
I Rcad·On!y Thn::~d~ Rc~d From !
t~911 t
~ I
~:. "'B" Ses;kn 2-0tB-
! "A" Remains Unchanged;
l fvfash:.r \Vri1e,~ To nB" And !
• Log~ Writes; i
•Slaves R~ad Frum "'A" And !
· Log Reads And Writfs;
• Read "Onl ~- Thre~ds Read l'rom
''B"
TS T6
Figure 2 of Shavit, reproduced above, "illustrates a time sequence of
data access sessions for a particular shared data object." (Shavit, 3 :48-50.)
As Shavit explains in the accompanying written description, "a master
thread 125A may perform data access operations on a particular version
5
Appeal2017-004252
Application 14/160,552
(e.g., version 'A') of shared data object 105, while slave threads 125B and
read-only threads 125C may be allowed to concurrently read from another
version (e.g., version 'B')." (Shavit, 8:10-14 (emphases added).) As Shavit
further explains with reference to Figure 2: "While master thread 125A
peiforms its operations, including reads and writes to version 'A', during A-
Session 201A, one or more read-only threads 125 may attempt to read
shared data object 105. The read-only threads 125 may be allowed to read
version 'B'." (Id. at 10:54--58 (emphasis added).)
Appellant does not dispute Shavit discloses master/slave shared access
to data objects, with slaves accessing only a copy. Appellant's argument
challenging the Examiner's rejection appears to be premised on the assertion
that Shavit's disclosure of log-based synchronization does not encompass
operations performed during a "transaction." In that regard, Appellant
emphasizes that Shavit describes "transactions" only in connection with its
disclosure of "hardware transactional memory" ("HTM") operations in a
separate embodiment, and asserts Shavit's disclosure of a log-based
synchronization mechanism is only a "fallback mechanism" for HTM.
(App. Br. 11; Reply Br. 3-5.)
We disagree. As the Examiner finds, and we agree, Shavit's
disclosure of a "session" encompasses a "transaction." (Ans. 20.)
Accordingly, Shavit's disclosure of, inter alia, a master performing data
operations (including writes) on "version A" of shared data "during an A-
session," wherein slaves are allowed to only read an unchanged, pre-session
"version B" of the shared data during that session, teaches or suggests the
disputed limitations, including operations "during a transaction." (Id. at 20-
21 (emphasis added).) Appellant does not make any argument, or point to
6
Appeal2017-004252
Application 14/160,552
any disclosure in the Specification, which would limit the meaning of the
term "transaction" to exclude Shavit' s teaching of master data operations
occurring during a "session."
Accordingly, we are not persuaded of error in the Examiner's
rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). Therefore, we sustain the
rejection of claim 1. For the same reasons, we sustain the rejection of
independent claims 9 and 15, for which Appellant presents no additional
arguments.
Dependent Claims 2, 3, 10, 11, 16, and 17
Although Appellant purports to present separate arguments regarding
dependent claims 2, 3, 10, 11, 16, and 17 (App. Br. 14--16), Appellant's
arguments with respect to these claims merely repeat the same or similar
arguments already raised in connection with claim I-that is, that "Shavit
does not describe master and slave threads (or any threads) performing the
claimed operations during transactions." (See id. at 15, 16.) As noted
above, we are not persuaded by these arguments because they are premised
on a mischaracterization of Shavit. Appellant otherwise merely repeats the
language of these claims and asserts, conclusorily, that Shavit fails to teach
or suggest such limitations, and that the additional reference (Adl-Tabatabai)
does not "cure the defects in Shavit." (Id.)
Without independent, substantive arguments, Appellant's contentions
regarding the dependent claims fail to constitute separate issues of
patentability. We, therefore, are not persuaded the Examiner erred in
rejecting these claims. See In re Lovin, 652 F.3d 1349, 1356 (Fed. Cir.
2011) ("We conclude that the Board has reasonably interpreted Rule 41.37
7
Appeal2017-004252
Application 14/160,552
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 dependent claims
2, 3, 10, 11, 16, and 17 claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(l)(iv).
Appellant does not argue separate patentability for claims 4--8, 12-14,
or 18-20. Rather, Appellant merely states:
For at least the reasons above, Appellant further requests
the reversal of the rejection of any other dependent claims in
the instant application based on Shavit in view of Adl-
Tabatabai.
(App. Br. 17.) Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of these claims on the
same basis discussed supra for claims 1, 9, and 15.
DECISION
For the above reasons, the Examiner's rejection of claims 1-20 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)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED
8
