Ex Parte Fields et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Aug 18, 2009

11054841 (B.P.A.I. Aug. 18, 2009)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
________________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
________________

Ex parte JAMES S. FIELDS JR., GUY L. GUTHRIE,
WILLIAM J. STARKE, and DEREK E. WILLIAMS
________________

Appeal 2008-005741
Application 11/054,841
Technology Center 2100
________________

Decided: August 19, 2009
________________

Before JAMES D. THOMAS, LEE E. BARRETT, and THU A. DANG,
Administrative Patent Judges.

THOMAS, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2008-005741
Application 11/054,841

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s final
rejection of claims 1-23. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
Invention
Appellants invented a data processing system including a memory
system, a plurality of masters that issue requests for access to memory
blocks within the memory system, a plurality of snoopers that provide partial
responses to requests by the masters, and response logic that generates
combined responses for the requests in response to the partial responses
provided by the plurality of snoopers. The plurality masters includes a
winning master that issues a request for a particular memory block, and
the plurality of snoopers includes a protecting snooper that, in response to
receipt of the request, provides a partial response and protects a transfer of
coherency ownership of the particular memory block to the winning master
until expiration of a protection window extension following receipt from the
response logic of a combined response for the request (Spec. 58, Abstract;
Figs. 1-3 and 6).
Representative Claim
1. A data processing system, comprising:

a memory system;

a plurality of masters that issue requests for access to
memory blocks within said memory system;

a plurality of snoopers that provide partial responses to
requests by the masters; and

2
Appeal 2008-005741
Application 11/054,841

response logic that generates combined responses for the
requests in response to the partial responses provided by the
plurality of snoopers, wherein each of the combined responses
represents a system-wide response for an associated one of the
requests;

wherein:

said plurality masters includes a winning master
that issues a request for a particular memory block; and

said plurality of snoopers includes a protecting
snooper that, in response to receipt of said request,
provides a partial response and protects a transfer of
coherency ownership of said particular memory block to
said winning master until receipt from said response
logic of a combined response for said request and
thereafter until expiration of a protection window
extension commencing upon receipt of said combined
response by the protecting snooper.

Prior Art and Examiner’s Rejections
The Examiner relies on the following reference as evidence of
anticipation:
Arimilli 2002/0129211 A1 Sep. 12, 2002

Claims 21-23 stand rejected under the written description portion of
the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. § 112. These claims were added by
amendment on October 24, 2006.
Claims 21-23 also stand rejected under the 2nd paragraph of 35 U.S.C.
§ 112 as being indefinite.
3
Appeal 2008-005741
Application 11/054,841

All claims on appeal, claims 1-23, stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §
102(b) as being anticipated by the Arimilli.

Claim Groupings
With respect to the two rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 112, since claims
21-23 recite substantially the same subject matter, claim 21 is representative
of them. As to the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 102, page 8 of the Brief
indicates that independent claim 1 is representative of all claims on appeal.

ISSUES
1. Have Appellants shown that the Examiner erred in finding that the
subject matter of dependent claims 21-23 failed to comply with the written
description requirement of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. § 112?
2. Have Appellants shown that the Examiner erred in finding that the
subject matter dependent claims 21-23 is unclear, not ascertainable, or
otherwise not defined?
3. Have Appellants shown that the Examiner erred in finding that the
lengthy protecting snooper clause of representative, independent claim 1 on
appeal is anticipated within 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) by Arimilli?

FINDINGS OF FACT
1. Disclosed Figure 6 illustrates the timing constraints of a representative
data processing system that is slightly more specific than the timing diagram
of Figure 3 of the disclosed invention, both of which illustrate a request
phase, a partial response phase, and a combined response phase. These
timing considerations are discussed beginning with “IV. Timing
4
Appeal 2008-005741
Application 11/054,841

Considerations” that are discussed between Specification pages 17 and 19
within paragraphs [0060]-[0066]. Paragraph [0060], bridging pages 17 and
18 of the Specification as filed, discusses broadly communication latency
that includes various formulaic representations from Figure 6 and details
specific address latencies and a window extension within Figure 6.
2. Arimilli’s Figure 1 shows an exemplary data processing system 8 that
includes two processor complexes 10a, 10n that are characterized as agents
in this reference. Each agent includes respective processors 16 and 18 and
masters 26 and snoopers 28. The memory controller 10b has its own
snooper 18 that directly connects to common system bus 12. Response logic
30 is also common to this bus. Figure 2 shows a timing diagram depicting
an exemplary conflict between multiple requests to modify a shared cache in
accordance with the disclosed invention in Arimilli.
3. The following paragraphs of Arimilli are reproduced here that appear
to be directly related to the third issue presented:
[0013] Because the first agent is unaware of its
ownership of the data until receipt of the combined response,
the coherency decision point protects the grant of ownership to
the first agent until the combined response is received by the
first agent. Following receipt of the combined response, the
first agent can assume responsibility for protecting its
ownership of the data until modification of the data is complete,
other agents acquiesce to invalidation of their cached copies of
the data, if any, and no other agent has an intention to modify a
locally cached shared copy of the target cache line. The
coherency decision point and the first agent preferably protect
the first agent's ownership of the data by providing appropriate
snoop responses to conflicting transactions, if any.

[0030] In accordance with the present invention,
arbitration for ownership of the target cache line is performed
by a coherency decision point (CDP), which is defined herein
5
Appeal 2008-005741
Application 11/054,841

as the device that grants or denies ownership of a target cache
line that is held in a shared state for purposes of modification.
The CDP may be implemented as a dedicated device (e.g., the
snooper of a particular one of agents 10) or, more preferably, is
the snooper of the agent 10 that holds the data of the target
cache line in the highest state of ownership defined by the
cache coherency protocol. Thus, if a target cache line is held
in the cache 14 of an agent 10 in a shared-owner cache
coherency state, the snooper 28 of that agent 10 preferably
serves as the CDP for the target cache line. If no cache holds
the target cache line in a shared-owner state, snooper 18 of
memory controller 10b serves as the CDP.

[0033] Because coherency protocols typically require
that only a single agent can own each cache line at any given
time for purposes of modification, it is imperative that the
ownership of the target cache line by processor complex 10a
(i.e., the new owner) be protected against other conflicting
transactions during interval 160. Ideally, processor complex
10a would "know" immediately after issuing modifying
transaction 150a that it will be awarded ownership and
would be able to protect its ownership by providing snoop
responses denying ownership to the agents 10 that issued
conflicting transactions 150b, 150c and 150e. However,
because of the finite interval 162 between the time t0 at which
processor complex 10a issues modifying transaction 150a and
time t1 at which processor complex 10a is informed of the grant
of ownership by combined response 154a, ownership of the
target cache line by processor complex 10a is protected by the
granting CDP during interval 162. As noted above, the
granting CDP protects the ownership of target cache line by
providing snoop responses denying ownership to other agents
10 that issue conflicting transactions. Following interval 162,
that is, during interval 164 between receipt of combined
response 154a and the close of interval 160, processor
complex 10a can protect its ownership of the target cache line
by providing appropriate snoop responses.

6
Appeal 2008-005741
Application 11/054,841

[0060] As has been described, the present invention
provides an improved data processing system and method for
arbitrating between conflicting requests to modify a cache line
held in a shared state and for protecting ownership of the
cache line granted during such arbitration. In accordance with
the present invention, a coherency decision point in the data
processing system grants ownership of the cache line to a
selected agent, for example, based upon which agent's
transaction is first received. The coherency decision point
grants ownership to the selected agent and protects the grant of
ownership against conflicting transactions of other agents by
providing appropriate snoop responses. An agent other than the
coherency decision point that has a pending conflicting
modifying request provides a snoop response to a snooped
conflicting transaction that indicates that, should the other agent
be granted ownership of the target cache line by the coherency
decision point, the other agent must perform clean-up
operations to maintain coherency.

[0061] The snoop responses are combined to produce a
combined response, which informs the initiating master of the
selected transaction that it has been granted ownership by the
coherency decision point and whether clean-up
operations are required. The clean-up operations include
issuing one or more Kill transactions on the system bus to
invalidate other cached copies of the target cache line and
providing appropriate snoop responses so that no other
agent maintains an intention to modify a locally cached shared
copy of the target cache line.

[0062] During the process of transferring ownership of
the target cache line to the master selected by the coherency
decision point, the target cache line is protected by the
coherency decision point from modification by other agents
until the initiator agent receives the combined response.
Following receipt of the combined response by the initiator
agent, the initiator agent preferably protects ownership of the
cache line until the store operation is complete, other cached
copies of the line, if any, are invalidated, and no other agent
7
Appeal 2008-005741
Application 11/054,841

has an intention to modify a locally cached shared copy of the
target cache line.

(Paras. [0013], [0030], [0033], and [0060]-[0062])

PRINCIPLES OF LAW
WRITTEN DESCRIPTION

The manner in which the specification as filed meets the written
description requirement is not material. The requirement may be met by
either an express or an implicit disclosure. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257,
262 (CCPA 1976). It is permissible to add inherent properties or
characteristics of the invention to the disclosure and claims. Kennecott
Corp. v. Kyocera Int’l, Inc., 835 F.2d 1419, 1422 (Fed. Cir. 1987), cert.
denied, 486 U.S. 1008 (1988). An invention claimed need not be described
in ipsis verbis in order to satisfy the written description requirement of 35
U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph. In re Lukach, 442 F.2d 967, 969 (CCPA
1971). The question is not whether an added word was the word used in the
specification as filed, but whether there is support in a specification for the
employment of the word in the claims, that is, whether the concept is present
in the original disclosure. See In re Anderson, 471 F.2d 1237, 1244 (CCPA
1973).

35 U.S.C. § 112, 2nd PARAGRAPH
Under the second paragraph of 35 U.S.C. § 112, it is to be noted that
to comply with the requirements of this paragraph, a claim must set out and
circumscribe a particular area with a reasonable degree of precision and
particularity when read in light of the disclosure and the teachings of the
8
Appeal 2008-005741
Application 11/054,841

prior art as it would be by the artisan. Note In re Johnson, 558 F.2d 1008,
1016 (CCPA 1977); In re Moore, 439 F.2d 1232, 1235 (CCPA 1971).

ANTICIPATION
“A claim is anticipated only if each and every element as set forth in
the claim is found, either expressly or inherently described, in a single prior
art reference.” Verdegaal Bros. v. Union Oil Co. of California, 814 F.2d
628, 631 (Fed. Cir. 1987). Analysis of whether a claim is patentable over
the prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102 begins with a determination of the scope
of the claim. We determine the scope of the claims in patent applications
not solely on the basis of the claim language, but upon giving claims their
broadest reasonable construction 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 properly interpreted claim
must then be compared with the prior art.

ANALYSIS
Written Description
As indicated earlier in this opinion, dependent claim 21-23 were
added by amendment after the filing date of the present application. Pages 4
and 5 of the principal Brief, as well as pages 2 and 3 of the Reply Brief,
detail the basis of the subject matter of these claims from the original
disclosure filing date of February 10, 2005. The claims’ subject matter is
consistent with the showing in Figure 6 and the discussion and formula in
paragraph [0060] of the Specification as filed as noted in the FF 1.
Representative claim 21 rephrases the formula at the top of page 18 of the
9
Appeal 2008-005741
Application 11/054,841

Specification as filed. As noted at the bottom of page 2 of the Reply Brief,
this paragraph from the Specification as filed properly permits Appellants to
claim the latency as a communication latency where paragraph [0060]
discusses this latency in terms of address latency as well. Therefore,
consistent with the above noted case law, Appellants have shown that they
had possession of the presently claimed subject matter in dependent claims
21-23 at the time the application was filed. As such, the rejection under the
written description portion of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. § 112 is
reversed.

Rejection under the 2nd paragraph of 35 U.S.C. § 112
Dependent claims 21-23 reasonably circumscribe the claimed subject
matter with a reasonable degree of precision and particularity when read in
light of the disclosure in the teachings of the prior art from an artisan’s
perspective, in accordance with the above-noted case law. Because the
subject matter of claims 21-23 directly reflects the disclosed subject matter
in substantially corresponding terms, from the perspective of one of ordinary
skill in the art, we cannot agree with the Examiner’s view that these claims
are unclear or otherwise not defined. The rejection of dependent claims 21-
23 under the 2nd paragraph of 35 U.S.C. § 112 is reversed.

Rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)
Page 6 of the principal Brief initially asserts and page 4 of the Reply
Brief repeats the view that “Arimilli does not disclose a particular snooper
(i.e., a protecting snooper) that protects the transfer of coherency ownership
10
Appeal 2008-005741
Application 11/054,841

both before and after a combined response, as claimed.” We strongly
disagree with this view from at least two perspectives.
Initially, the views expressed at page 7 of the principal Brief and at
page 4 and 5 of the Reply Brief are misplaced. The views here appear to be
based upon the approach that only a single protective snooper is recited; a
single such snooper is not recited. At the same time, it apparently is
acknowledged that Arimilli may require a plurality of different snoopers to
affect the functionality that is claimed. Appellants’ own Specification
Figure 1 illustrates two snoopers 116 and 126 between which the subject
matter of representative of system independent claim 1 on appeal does not
distinguish. Even Appellants’ disclosed invention utilizes a plurality of
snoopers in a corresponding manner apparently as does the Figure 1
embodiment in Arimilli that we discussed initially in FF 2.
Moreover, and from our second perspective, the discussion of a
protective type snooper in paragraph 30 of Arimilli, also reproduced in FF 2,
would appear to indicate that a single snooper performs the coherency
decision point (CDP) functionality in Arimilli. Overall, the corresponding
discussion among paragraphs [0013], [0030], [0033], and [0060]-[0062] we
reproduced in FF 2 of Arimilli does disclose a particular snooper
functionality, one that protects the transfer of coherency of ownership both
before and after a combined response to the extent recited in the protective
snooper clause of representative, independent claim 1 on appeal. This would
appear to include a capability of extending the coherency of ownership until
the expiration of an arbitrarily definable protection window extension to the
extent also recited at the end of this claim on appeal. The rejection of
11
Appeal 2008-005741
Application 11/054,841

representative independent claim 1 as being anticipated by Arimilli is
affirmed.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Appellants have shown that the Examiner erred in concluding that
Appellants did not have possession of the subject matter of representative
dependent claim 21 on appeal within the originally filed disclosure.
2. Additionally, the Appellants have also shown that the Examiner erred
in taking the view that the subject matter of the representative dependent
claim 21 on appeal was unclear or otherwise undefined when viewed by an
artisan in accordance with the disclosed invention.
3. On the other hand, Appellants have not shown that the Examiner erred
in finding that the subject matter of representative independent claim 1 on
appeal was anticipated by Arimilli within 35 U.S.C. § 102(b).

DECISION
The Examiner’s rejection of dependent claims 21-23 under the written
description portion of the 1st paragraph of 35 U.S.C. § 112 is reversed as is
the rejection of these claims under the 2nd paragraph of 35 U.S.C. § 112.
The Examiner’s rejections of all claims on appeal, claims 1-23, as being
anticipated by Arimilli under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) is affirmed. Since at least
one rejection encompassing all claims on appeal is affirmed, the decision of
the examiner is affirmed. All claims on appeal are unpatentable.
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)(v).

AFFIRMED
12
Appeal 2008-005741
Application 11/054,841

peb

DILLON & YUDELL LLP
8911 N. CAPITAL OF TEXAS HWY.,
SUITE 2110
AUSTIN, TX 78759

13