Ex Parte Fetterman et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 13, 2017

13476825 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 13, 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.
13/476,825 05/21/2012 Michael FETTERMAN NVDA/MA-11-0403-US2 3218
102324 7590 02/15/2017
Arte.ois T aw Omim T T P/NVTDTA
EXAMINER
7710 Cherry Park Drive Suite T #104
Houston, TX 77095
WONG, TITUS
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2184
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/15/2017 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):
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 MICHAEL FETTERMAN, SHIRISH GADRE,
JOHN H. EDMONDSON, OMKAR PARANJAPE,
ANJANA RAJENDRAN, ERIC LYELL HILL,
RAJESHWARAN SELVANESAN, CHARLES McCARVER,
KEVIN MITCHELL, and STEVEN JAMES HEINRICH
Appeal 2016-006349
Application 13/476,8251
Technology Center 2100
Before MICHAEL J. STRAUSS, JEREMY J. CURCURI, and
MICHAEL J. ENGLE, Administrative Patent Judges.
ENGLE, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of
claims 1—20. We have jurisdiction under 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).
Technology
The application relates to “scheduling of common resource access
requests.” Spec. Abstract.
1 Appellants state the real party in interest is NVIDIA Corp. App. Br. 3.
Appeal 2016-006349
Application 13/476,825
Illustrative Claims
Claims 1 and 7 are illustrative and reproduced below with the
limitations at issue emphasized:
1. A method for tracking the ages of different requests for
common resources in a processing pipeline, the method
comprising:
receiving a plurality of requests for one or more common
resources;
storing a different entry in a buffer for each request in the
plurality of requests, wherein the entries are stored in a temporal
order;
upon determining that a first common resource is
available, searching the entries stored in the buffer to identify a
subset of entries corresponding to requests that are associated
with at least the first common resource;
identifying one or more entries included in the subset of
entries that indicate that all common resources, including the
first common resource, associated with the requests
corresponding to the one or more entries are available;
reading a first entry included in the one or more entries
that is the oldest of the one or more entries in order to execute a
first cycle of a first request that corresponds to the first entry.
7. The method of claim 6, wherein storing the new entry
comprises adding the new entry to a newest position in the buffer,
and shifting each entry in the buffer that resides between the
bubble and the newest position one entry such that an existing
entry in the buffer replaces the bubble.
Rejection
Claims 1—20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by
Accapadi et al. (US 2004/0216112 Al; Oct. 28, 2004). Final Act. 2.
2
Appeal 2016-006349
Application 13/476,825
ISSUES
1. Did the Examiner err in finding Accapadi discloses “identifying
one or more entries included in the subset of entries that indicate that all
common resources, including the first common resource, associated with the
requests corresponding to the one or more entries are available,” as recited in
claim 1, and commensurately recited in independent claims 10 and 19?
2. Did the Examiner err in finding Accapadi discloses “shifting
each entry in the buffer that resides between the bubble and the newest
position one entry such that an existing entry in the buffer replaces the
bubble,” as recited in dependent claims 7 and 16?
ANALYSIS
Claims 1—6, 8—15, and 17—20
Claim 1 recites “identifying one or more entries included in the subset
of entries that indicate that all common resources, including the first
common resource, associated with the requests corresponding to the one or
more entries are available.” Independent claims 10 and 19 recite
commensurate limitations.
The Examiner relies on Accapadi for disclosing this limitation.
Ans. 3. Accapadi discloses “a FIFO queue used to store information about
processes waiting for a lock that controls access to shared resource.”
Accapadi 124. When the lock later becomes available, “the requesting
process receives access to shared resource.” Id. 125.
Appellants contend in the claims at issue, “the entries themselves are
source of the indication that all common resources are available,” whereas
“Accapadi discloses that a lock control structure, external to the FIFO
queue, maintains data about the lock.” Reply Br. 4 (emphasis added).
3
Appeal 2016-006349
Application 13/476,825
However, we agree with the Examiner that “Applicant is not specific
on what this ‘indication’ is” and therefore the term “‘indication’ is
interpreted as any sign that is shown or implied.” Ans. 3. The claims
require “one or more entries . . . that indicate that all common resources
[requested for those entries]... are available,” but do not specify how the
entries must indicate such availability.
In addition, neither Appellants’ argument nor its summary of
supporting written description identify any portion of the Specification
requiring the entries themselves comprise the entire indication. See App. Br.
7 (citing Spec. 1125, Fig. 10).
Given the record before us and the broadest reasonable interpretation
of the disputed limitation, Appellants have not persuaded us the Examiner
erred in finding Accapadi’s FIFO queue, which identifies the process and the
lock which the process is waiting for, discloses “identifying one or more
entries included in the subset of entries that indicate that all common
resources, including the first common resource, associated with the requests
corresponding to the one or more entries are available.” Ans. 2—3 (citing
Accapadi 124, Fig. 2).
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of independent
claims 1,10, and 19, and their dependent claims 2—6, 8, 9, 11—15, 17, 18,
and 20, which Appellants argue are patentable for similar reasons. See App.
Br. 12; 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv).
Claims 7 and 16
Dependent claims 7 and 16 recite “shifting each entry in the buffer
that resides between the bubble and the newest position one entry such that
an existing entry in the buffer replaces the bubble.”
4
Appeal 2016-006349
Application 13/476,825
The Examiner contends “a fifo queue inherently shifts entries as they
are processed.” Ans. 3 (emphasis omitted). However, no matter how
obvious shifting to fill a vacated position in a queue may be, we agree with
Appellants that such shifting is not inherent. “Anticipation by inherent
disclosure is appropriate only when the reference discloses prior art that
must necessarily include the unstated limitation.” Therasense, Inc. v.
Becton, Dickinson & Co., 593 F.3d 1325, 1332 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (quotation
omitted). Inherency “may not be established by probabilities or possibilities.
The mere fact that a certain thing may result from a given set of
circumstances is not sufficient.” Id. (quotation omitted); see also MPEP
§2112.
Here, Appellants have set forth evidence demonstrating a person of
ordinary skill at the time of the invention would have known some FIFO
queues used bubbles and shifting whereas other FIFO queues were “bubble
free” or use pointers rather than shifting. App. Br. 14 (citing, e.g.,
http://www.cypress.com/?id=4&rlD=31578 and
http:// www. cl. cam. ac.uk/teaching/1213 /SysOnChip/materials/sp 1 rtl/zhpc7 d6
28484.html). Thus, we agree with Appellants that a FIFO queue may use
bubbles and shifting, but does not necessarily do so. Because of this, FIFO
queues do not inherently use bubbles and shifting.
Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 7
and 16 as anticipated.
REJECTION UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b)
In a new ground of rejection using our authority under 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.50(b), we reject claims 7 and 16 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over
5
Appeal 2016-006349
Application 13/476,825
Accapadi, the admitted prior art, and Lofgren et al. (US 7653807 B2; Jan.
26, 2010).
As discussed above, Accapadi discloses a FIFO queue but does not
specify whether the queue is implemented using bubbles and shifting.
Accapadi 124. Notably, Appellants do not dispute the Examiner’s finding
that Accapadi discloses “retiring the first entry from the buffer” (claim 4);
“the first entry is not the oldest entry in the buffer” (claim 5); and “creating a
bubble in the buffer to replace the first entry when the first entry is retired”
(claim 5). Final Act. 4. Moreover, Appellants admit a person of ordinary
skill in the art at the time of the invention would have known FIFO queues
could be implemented either with or without shifting and bubbles. App. Br.
14; Reply Br. 6. For example, “[i]n a bubble-through FIFO, after ... a first
word is read from the FIFO, each word in the FIFO then moves up a
position,” i.e., iteratively replacing the bubble next to it. App. Br. 14 (citing
http://www.cypress.com/?id=4&rlD=31578). As the Supreme Court has
found, “when a patent claims a structure already known in the prior art that
is altered by the mere substitution of one element for another known in the
field, the combination must do more than yield a predictable result.” KSR
Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416 (2007). Here, implementation of
a FIFO queue either with or without shifting and bubbles may entail some
trade-off between simplicity, speed, and space, but based upon Appellants’
own admissions, those trade-offs were known and predictable.
Although we believe the admitted prior art sufficient for teaching the
additional limitation of claims 7 and 16, Lofgren further discloses an
example of “Removing a Pipeline Bubble.” Lofgren Title. For example,
Figures 4A through 4C depict the process of eliminating bubbles with three
6
Appeal 2016-006349
Application 13/476,825
invalid data entries in the middle of a FIFO queue via shifting each valid
data entry by one slot. Id. at 6:30-7:40 (e.g., “[Registers 408 and 412
(which are associated with bubbles) are replaced with valid data which
originates from registers 406, and 410. Consequently, bubbles 420 and 424
are removed.”). Lofgren’s removal of pipeline bubbles teaches or suggests
the disputed limitation of claims 7 and 16. It would have been obvious to a
person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to utilize
Lofgren’s bubble removal method with the teachings of Accapadi and the
admitted prior art since “[pipeline bubbles are undesirable because they
increase data latency and prevent the system from achieving the maximum
possible throughput.” Lofgren 1:51—54. Moreover, as discussed above for
the admitted prior art, shifting to eliminate bubbles was a known technique
that yields no more than a predictable result. Accordingly, in a new ground
of rejection, we reject claims 7 and 16 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
obvious over Accapadi, the admitted prior art, and Lofgren.
DECISION
For the reasons above, we affirm the Examiner’s decision rejecting
claims 1—6, 8—15, and 17—20.
We reverse the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 7 and 16.
In a new ground of rejection, we reject claims 7 and 16 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a).
TIME TO RESPOND
This decision contains a new ground of rejection pursuant to 37
C.F.R. § 41.50(b). Section 41.50(b) provides that “[a] new ground of
rejection pursuant to this paragraph shall not be considered final for judicial
review.” Section 41.50(b) also provides:
7
Appeal 2016-006349
Application 13/476,825
When the Board enters such a non-final decision, 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 prosecution will be remanded to the
examiner. The new ground of rejection is binding upon the
examiner unless an amendment or new Evidence not previously
of Record is made which, in the opinion of the examiner,
overcomes the new ground of rejection designated in the
decision. Should the examiner reject the claims, appellant may
again appeal to the Board pursuant to this subpart.
(2) Request rehearing. Request that the proceeding be reheard
under § 41.52 by the Board upon the same Record. The request
for rehearing must address any new ground of rejection and state
with particularity the points believed to have been
misapprehended or overlooked in entering the new ground of
rejection and also state all other grounds upon which rehearing
is sought.
Further guidance on responding to a new ground of rejection can be
found in the Manual of Patent Examining Procedure § 1214.01.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.50(f).
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
37 C.F.R, $ 41.50(b)
8