Ex Parte Fornaeus et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jul 27, 2018

13764329 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 27, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
13/764,329 02/11/2013 Johan Fornaeus
30636 7590 07/27/2018
FAY KAPLUN & MARCIN, LLP
150 BROADWAY, SUITE 702
NEW YORK, NY 10038
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.
40101/22701 (2012006) 9632
EXAMINER
DASCOMB, JACOB D
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2199
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/27/2018 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte JOHAN FORNAEUS
and
DENNIS RICE 1
Appeal2017-010392
Application 13/764,329
Technology Center 2100
Before ALLEN R. MacDONALD, CARLA M. KRIVAK, and
DAVID J. CUTITTA II, Administrative Patent Judges.
KRIVAK, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of
claims 1, 3-19, 21, and 22. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
1 Appellants identify the real party in interest as Wind River Systems, Inc.,
Alameda, California.
Appeal2017-010392
Application 13/764,329
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants' invention is directed to a "method and system for
deterministic multicore execution" (Title (formatting omitted)).
Independent claim 1, reproduced below, is exemplary of the subject
matter on appeal.
1. A system, comprising:
a memory including a plurality of software applications,
the plurality of software applications including a first software
application and a second software application;
a deterministic group comprising a first processing core,
the first processing core executing a first resource monitor and
the first software application;
wherein the deterministic group executes specific tasks of
the first software application in a specified time interval,
a constrained group comprising a second processing core,
the second processing core executing a second resource monitor
and the second software application,
wherein the first resource monitor detects an insufficient
access to resources by the first processing core for executing
specific tasks of the first software application and sends an
indication to the second resource monitor indicating the
insufficient access to resources by the first processing core for
executing specific tasks for the first software application, and
wherein the second resource monitor receives the
indication and instructs the second processing core to modify
execution of the second software application, wherein the
modifying execution of the second software application
comprises one of pausing execution of the second software
application and throttling execution of the second software
application for the specified time interval.
Appeal Br. 15.
2
Appeal2017-010392
Application 13/764,329
REFERENCES and REJECTIONS
The Examiner rejected claims 1, 3, 11, 12, and 21 under 35 U.S.C.
§ I03(a) based upon the teachings ofMasuoka (US 6,081,826 issued June
27, 2000), Herdrich (US 2010/0250998 Al; published Sep. 30, 2010), and
Murthy (US 2011/0167424 Al; published Jul. 7, 2011).
The Examiner rejected claims 4 and 13 under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a)
based upon the teachings of Masuoka, Herdrich, Murthy, and Schmidt
(US 8,286,174 Bl; issued Oct. 9, 2012).
The Examiner rejected claims 5 and 14 under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a)
based upon the teachings of Masuoka, Herdrich, Murthy, and Carter
(US 2009/0064158 Al; published Mar. 5, 2009).
The Examiner rejected claims 6 and 15 under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a)
based upon the teachings Masuoka, Herdrich, Murthy, Carter, and Rotithor
(US 2009/0248976 Al; published Oct. 1, 2009).
The Examiner rejected claims 7, 8, 16, and 17 under 35 U.S.C.
§ I03(a) based upon the teachings Masuoka, Herdrich, Murthy, and Schmidt
(US 2004/0255296 Al; published Dec. 16, 2004).
The Examiner rejected claims 9 and 18 under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a)
based upon the teachings Masuoka, Herdrich, Murthy, and Hotra
(US 2009/0083734 Al; published Mar. 26, 2009).
The Examiner rejected claims 10 and 19 under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a)
based upon the teachings Masuoka, Herdrich, Murthy, and Telang
(US 8,516,121 Bl; issued Aug. 20, 2013).
The Examiner rejected claims 22 under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) based
upon the teachings of Masuoka, Herdrich, and Murthy, and Huscroft
(US 2014/0215468 Al; published Jul. 31, 2014).
3
Appeal2017-010392
Application 13/764,329
ANALYSIS
Appellants contend the Examiner erred in finding the combination of
Masuoka, Herdrich, and Murthy fails to suggest "wherein the modifying
execution of the second software application comprises one of pausing
execution of the second software application and throttling execution of the
second software application for the specified time interval" as claimed (App.
Br. 4--8). Particularly, Appellants contend Murthy "fails to disclose
throttling the execution of a software application" (App. Br. 4, 6) and
"pausing [or] throttling execution of the second software application for the
specified time interval" (italics partially omitted) (App. Br. 6). Appellants
argue Masuoka and Herdrich do not cure the deficiency of Murthy (App. Br.
8). We do not agree.
We agree with and adopt the Examiner's findings in the Final Action
and Answer as our own. Initially we note the Examiner relies on Herdrich
for teaching the limitation "the deterministic group executes specific tasks of
the first software application in a specific time interval" (Final Act. 5 citing
Herdrich i-f 4 7, "In one embodiment, an operating system schedules time
(time-slicing) to different applications based on their priorities. A low
priority program is allocated with a shorter time-slice than a high priority
program"). The Examiner also cites to paragraph 28 of Herdrich ("'a low
priority program competes for a same set of shared resources with a high
priority program in a multi-core processor system', emphasis added, the
high priority program corresponds to the first software application") (Final
Act. 5-6). The Examiner's Answer states this "claimed limitation is obvious
in view of Herdrich and further in view of Murthy. As cited in the final
rejection mailed on 8/23/2016, Herdrich teaches a time interval of a first
4
Appeal2017-010392
Application 13/764,329
application .... (the time slice corresponds to the time interval)" (Ans. 18
citing Herdrich's ,r 47).
Appellants do not address the Examiner's findings with respect to
Herdrich in the Appeal Brief. Appellants ultimately address the Examiner's
findings only with respect to Herdrich's paragraph 47 in the Reply Brief
(Reply Br. 4). Appellants' Reply acknowledges "Murthy discloses
performing throttling during a time window" (Reply Br. 3). Appellants then
address Herdrich's paragraph 47, stating "Applicant is unsure why the
Examiner believes that an operating system scheduling time to different
applications 'effectively throttles the lower priority application for the time
interval of the first application"' (Reply Br. 4).
However, as noted above, Herdrich's paragraph 28 states "a low
priority program competes for a same set of shared resources with a high
priority program in a multi-core processor system." That is, the lower and
higher priority applications share the same resources and thus, the same time
period ("a low priority program is allocated with a shorter time-slice than a
high priority program" (Herdrich ,r 47). It would have been obvious to an
artisan of ordinary skill at the time of Appellants' invention, in light of
teachings of Murthy, Herdrich (i-fi-f 47 and 28), and Masuoka, that
Appellants' second software application would either be paused or throttled
during the specified time interval in which the first application is executing.
Therefore, we agree with the Examiner's findings and sustain the
rejection of independent claim 1, independent claims 11 and 21 argued
therewith (App. Br. 8), and dependent claims 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 12, 13, 14, 15,
16, 17, and 22 argued for substantially the same reasons (App. Br. 8-11, and
13).
5
Appeal2017-010392
Application 13/764,329
Appellants separately argue dependent claims 10 and 19, asserting
Telang does not disclose "the second processing core pauses execution of
the second software application until a completion of a current time frame of
the first software application" as claimed (App. Br. 11 ). We do not agree.
We agree with the Examiner's findings and adopt them as our own
(Final Act. 15-16; Ans. 19-21). Particularly, we agree Telang's column 5,
lines 5---6, recites a "job is paused and any data transfer operation is stopped"
(Final Act. 15; Ans. 21). Specifically, the Examiner finds Telang's "pausing
a backup job for a sleep time period will allow the process contributing to
the current network load to continue executing" during the sleep time
interval (Ans. 20). We again note the Examiner also cited Herdrich for
teaching a specific time interval, which Appellants did not address in the
Appeal Brief or the Reply Brief. The Examiner provides a sufficiently
articulated rational basis supporting the finding of obviousness. Thus, we
sustain the Examiner's rejection of dependent claims 10 and 19.
For the above reasons, we are not persuaded of Examiner error. We
find the weight of the evidence supports the Examiner's ultimate legal
conclusion of obviousness. Therefore sustain the Examiner's rejection of
claims 1, 3-19, 21, and 22
DECISION
The Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1, 3-19, 21, and 22 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).
6
Appeal2017-010392
Application 13/764,329
AFFIRMED
7