Ex Parte Gamoneda et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 22, 2018

14066437 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 22, 2018)

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.
14/066,437 10/29/2013 Jonathan J. Gamoneda DN30555NH 7364
54416 7590 02/26/2018
NXP-Yudell Isidore PLLC
6501 William Cannon Drive West
AUSTIN, TX 78735
EXAMINER
KO, CHAE M
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2114
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/26/2018 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):
ip. department .u s @ nxp. com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte JONATHAN J. GAMONEDA and
WILLIAM C. MOYER
Appeal 2017-009785
Application 14/066,437
Technology Center 2100
Before JOHN A. JEFFERY, BRUCE R. WINSOR, and
JUSTIN BUSCH, Administrative Patent Judges.
BUSCH, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellants* 1 appeal from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1, 2, 5-10, 13-16, and 18-25, which
constitute all the claims pending in this application. We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). Claims 3,4, 11, 12, and 17 were cancelled.
We affirm.
1 Appellants identify the real party of interest as “NXP USA, Inc. . . . and
Morgan Stanley Senior Funding, Inc[.] as a security interest.” App. Br. 1.
1
Appeal 2017-009785
Application 14/066,437
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Claims 1, 9, and 16 are independent claims. The claims relate to
switching trace modes without halting a processor. Spec. ^ 1. “In one or
more embodiments, program trace switches can occur on change of flow
boundaries, such that no trace information is lost.” Id.*\\ 11. “In one
example, a change of flow boundary can include [a] branch code and/or a
branch instruction.” Id. ^ 40. Claim 1 is representative and reproduced
below:
1. A system, comprising:
a processing unit;
a memory coupled to the processing unit that is configured
to store program instructions executable by the processing unit;
and
a debug/trace unit coupled to the processing unit;
wherein the processing unit executes a first portion of the
program instructions utilizing a first trace mode;
wherein the debug/trace unit:
determines that there is a change of flow boundary
of the program instructions based on at least one branch
instruction;
determines that the first trace mode is to be switched
to a second trace mode based on the change of flow
boundary of the program instructions and based on a status
of a hardware register of the debug/trace unit; and
switches from the first trace mode to the second
trace mode without halting the processing unit; and
wherein the processing unit executes a second portion of
the program instructions utilizing the second trace mode.
2
Appeal 2017-009785
Application 14/066,437
REJECTIONS
Claims 1, 5-9, 13, 14, 16, and 18-25 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as being unpatentable over Mayer (US 2013/0185601 Al; July 18,
2013) and Smolders (US 6,253,338 Bl; June 26, 2001). Final Act. 2-9.2 3
Claims 2 and 10 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Mayer, Smolders, and Moyer (US 2006/0195721 Al;
Aug. 31, 2006). Final Act. 9-10.
Claim 15 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable
over Mayer, Smolders, and Miller (US 2013/0007532 Al; Jan. 3, 2013).
Final Act. 10-11.
THE REJECTION OVER MAYER AND SMOLDERS
The Examiner finds Mayer discloses every recited element of claim 1
except for the recited determining a change of a program instructions’ flow
boundary based on at least one branch instruction, but cites Smolders as
teaching this feature in concluding that the claim would have been obvious.
Final Act. 3—4; Ans. 2—4.
Appellants argue the Examiner’s reliance on Smolders is misplaced
because neither of Smolders’ two trace mode embodiments determine that a
first trace mode is switched to a second trace mode based on a change of
flow boundary of program instructions and based on a status of a hardware
register of a debug/trace unit. App. Br. 5; Reply Br. 4. Appellants add that
Mayer’s selection of a trace mode (i.e., whether, and where, to output trace
2 Claims 21-25 are mistakenly omitted from the header for this rejection, but
otherwise appear in the body of the rejection. Final Act. 2-3, 7-9. We find
the Examiner’s typographical error to be harmless.
3
Appeal 2017-009785
Application 14/066,437
mode instructions generated by a debugger) are based on criteria not
including a branch instruction. Reply Br. 3.
ISSUE
Under § 103, has the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1 by finding
that Mayer and Smolders collectively would have taught or suggested a
debug/trace unit that
determines that there is a change of flow boundary of the
program instructions based on at least one branch instruction;
[and]
determines that the first trace mode is to be switched to a
second trace mode based on the change of flow boundary of the
program instructions and based on a status of a hardware register
of the debug/trace unit,
as recited in claim 1?
ANALYSIS
Based on the record before us, we find no error in the Examiner’s
obviousness rejection of independent claim 1 which calls for, in pertinent
part, determining that a first trace mode is to be switched to a second trace
mode based on a determined change of flow boundary of the program
instructions and based on a status of a hardware register of a debug/trace
unit.
We begin by noting that the Examiner’s obviousness rejection relies
principally on Mayer for teaching many of the recited elements of claim 1.
Final Act. 3; Ans. 2-3. Of particular note, the Examiner finds Mayer
teaches or suggests determining that a first trace mode is to be switched to a
second trace mode based on a buffer fill level. See Final Act. 3 (citing
Mayer ]fl[ 27, 38^40); Ans. 2; see also Ans. 12 (finding Mayer’s switching
4
Appeal 2017-009785
Application 14/066,437
between different tracing modes depends “on the condition of the current
portion of the program that is executing”).3 * 5
The Examiner finds Mayer teaches switching a first trace mode to a
second trace mode based on a buffer fill level, and the Examiner cites
Smolders merely to show that such a switch could also be based on
Smolders’ ability to determine a change of flow boundary of program
instructions. Final Act. 3—4; Ans. 3-4, 12. That is, the Examiner cites
Smolders merely to show that basing Mayer’s switching determination on a
branch instruction (the claimed “change of flow boundary”) would have
been obvious in light of Smolders’ functionality. Thus, Appellants’
arguments regarding (1) Mayer’s alleged shortcomings with respect to a
branch instruction, Reply Br. 3; and (2) Smolders’ alleged shortcomings
with respect to switching to a different trace mode, App. Br. 5; Reply Br. 4,
are unavailing where, as here, the rejection is not based solely on either
Mayer or Smolders, but rather on the cited references’ collective teachings.
See In re Merck & Co., Inc., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Therefore, we are not persuaded that the Examiner erred in rejecting
(1) independent claim 1; (2) independent claims 9 and 16, which recite
commensurate limitations; and (3) dependent claims 5-8, 13, 14, and 18-25,
which are not argued separately with particularity.
3 Although the Examiner finds “Smolders teaches that the tracing mode
changes from normal tracing mode to single-step mode,” the rejection does
not rely on this finding. Compare Advisory Action 2 with Final Act. 3—4;
Ans. 2—4, 11-12. Accordingly, Appellants’ arguments regarding Smolders’
failure to teach changing trace modes does not address the Examiner’s
rejection. See App. Br. 5; Reply Br. 4.
5
Appeal 2017-009785
Application 14/066,437
THE OTHER OBVIOUSNESS REJECTIONS
We also sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejections of claims 2,
10, and 15. Final Act. 9-11. Because these rejections were not argued
separately with particularity, we are not persuaded of error for the reasons
previously discussed.
CONCLUSION
Based on this record, the Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 1, 2,
5-10, 13-16, and 18-25 under § 103.
DECISION
For the above reasons, we affirm the Examiner’s decision to reject
claims 1, 2, 5-10, 13-16, and 18-25.
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
6