Ex Parte Gao et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardSep 20, 201310515207 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 20, 2013) Copy Citation UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ________________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ________________ Ex parte GUANG R. GAO and KEVIN B. THEOBALD ________________ Appeal 2011-004495 Application 10/515,207 Technology Center 2100 ________________ Before JOSEPH F. RUGGIERO, JOHNNY A. KUMAR, and JOHN A. EVANS, Administrative Patent Judges. KUMAR, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2011-004495 Application 10/515,207 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Introduction Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s final rejection of claims 1-24. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. Invention Appellants’ invention relates to a method and apparatus for real-time multithreading. Spec., page 1, ll. 14-15. Independent claim 1 further illustrates the invention as follows: 1. A real-time multithreading apparatus, comprising: two or more multithreading nodes connected by an interconnection network, each multithreading node comprising: an execution unit for executing active fibers; a synchronization unit for scheduling and synchronizing fibers and procedures, and handling remote accesses, the synchronization unit interconnecting with the interconnection network and including a real-time manager for use in scheduling and synchronizing fibers, the scheduling and synchronizing including ranking respective fibers based on priorities of the respective fibers, the priorities based at least in part on the associated real-time constraints, the synchronization unit being configured to interrupt the execution of one of the active fibers being executed by the execution unit in order to execute a fiber having a high priority; and a ready queue and an event queue through which the execution unit and the synchronization unit communicate, wherein the respective fibers are ordered in the ready queue based on the results of the ranking by the synchronization unit. Appeal 2011-004495 Application 10/515,207 3 Rejection The Examiner rejected claims 1-24 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Theobald (Kevin Bryan Theobald, EARTH: An Efficient Architecture For Running Threads, Ph. D. thesis, McGill University (1999)) and Maytal (US 6,092,095, Jul. 18, 2000). Ans. 4. ISSUE AND ANALYSIS Based on Appellants’ arguments in the Briefs (App. Br. 4-11; Reply Br. 1-4), the principal and dispositive issue of whether the Examiner erred in rejecting exemplary claim 1 turns on whether the combination of Theobald and Maytal teaches or suggests “the synchronization unit being configured to interrupt the execution of one of the active fibers being executed by the execution unit in order to execute a fiber having a high priority,” as recited in claim 1 (hereinafter “the interrupt feature”). Claim 12 recites similar subject matter and Appellants rely on similar arguments as those presented in support of claim 1 (Reply Br. 4). We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellants’ arguments that the Examiner has erred. We disagree with Appellants’ conclusions. We adopt as our own (1) the findings and reasons set forth by the Examiner in the action from which this appeal is taken and (2) the reasons set forth by the Examiner in the Examiner’s Answer in response to Appellants’ Appeal Brief. We concur with the conclusions reached by the Examiner. We highlight and address specific findings and arguments for emphasis as follows. In rejecting independent claim 1 over the combination of Theobald and Maytal, the Examiner finds that Theobald discloses the claimed features Appeal 2011-004495 Application 10/515,207 4 as shown in the table on pages 4-6 of the Answer, except for, inter alia, the disputed interrupt feature. The Examiner relies on Maytal for disclosing or suggesting the interrupt feature (Ans. 6, 10-11). Appellants admit that in Maytal “interrupt 39 operates to allow real- time controller 32 to receive control of CPU 10 from the operating system 33,” but contend that “controller 32 allows non-real-time tasks to continue in conjunction with real-time tasks following interrupt 39.” App. Br. 7; Reply Br. 3 (emphasis ours). In particular, Appellants contend that “Maytal does not disclose, teach, or suggest interrupting non real-time tasks while they are actually being executed.” Reply Br. 3. Appellants’ arguments are not persuasive as our interpretation of the disclosure of Maytal coincides with that of the Examiner. In particular, we agree with the Examiner that Maytal teaches a time period T beings [sic] with an interrupt 39 at which point real-time controller 32 receives control from the operating system 33. Real-time controller 32 operates during the first portion 43 of the time period T, returning control to the operating system 33 at the end of portion 43. This continues until receipt of a further interrupt 39 (C. 7 L. 60-67). Thus in a given time period T, non real-time applications are executed until an interrupt occurs, at which point real-time controller takes over to execute real-time tasks (FIG. 2). While Appellant does not mention a real-time controller as in Maytal, nothing in the claims precludes the use of a real-time controller and nothing specifies how or what happens with the interrupt. Ans. 10. Further, as alluded to by the Examiner (Ans. 10), Appellants’ argument (App. Br. 7; Reply Br. 1-2) that Maytal requires “non-real-time tasks to continue in conjunction with real-time tasks following interrupt” is Appeal 2011-004495 Application 10/515,207 5 unpersuasive because it is not commensurate with the scope of claim 1, which does not preclude execution of non-real-time tasks in conjunction with real-time tasks. As such, the Examiner finds that Maytal meets the claimed “interrupt” feature, and we concur with the Examiner. Consequently, we find no error in the Examiner’s rejections of claims 1 (and 12). Claims 2-11 and 13-24, not separately argued, fall with claims 1 and 12. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii). CONCLUSION The Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 1-24 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Theobald and Maytal. DECISION We affirm the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1-24. 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)(iv). AFFIRMED msc Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation