Ex Parte Gao et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 16, 2016

11688090 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 16, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
11/688,090 03/19/2007
35525 7590 02/18/2016
IBM CORP (YA)
C/O YEE & AS SOCIA TES PC
P.O. BOX 802333
DALLAS, TX 75380
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Yaoqing Gao
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.
CA920070012US 1 9393
EXAMINER
DANG, CHRISTINE
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2199
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/18/2016 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):
ptonotifs@yeeiplaw.com
mgamez@yeeiplaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte Y AOQING GAO, LIANGXIAO HU,
GUANSONG ZHANG, and PENG ZHAO
Appeal2013-004242
Application 11/688,090
Technology Center 2100
Before ROBERT E. NAPPI, DEBRA K. STEPHENS, and
SHARON PENICK, Administrative Patent Judges.
STEPHENS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a final rejection of
claims 1-25, 28, and29. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
Claims 26 and 27 have been cancelled.
We REVERSE.
Appeal2013-004242
Application 11/688,090
STATEMENT OF THE INVENTION
According to Appellants, the claims are directed to a compiler method
of exploiting data value locality for computation reuse (Spec. i-f 1 ). Claim 1,
reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. A computer implemented method for computation reuse
in a region of software code, the computer implemented method
compnsmg:
identifying a region of software code during runtime
which has single entry and exit points and in which a potential
computation reuse opportunity exists;
creating a helper thread separate from a master thread for
the region of software code, wherein one of the helper thread and
master thread performs a computation specified in the region of
software code, and wherein the other of the helper thread and
master thread looks up a value of the computation previously
executed and stored in a lookup table;
responsive to the other of the helper thread and master
thread locating the value of the computation previously executed
in the lookup table, retrieving the value from the lookup table,
wherein the other of the helper thread and master thread ignores
the computation performed by the one of the helper thread and
master thread; and
responsive to a failure of the other of the helper thread and
master thread to locate the value of the computation in the lookup
table, obtaining a result of the computation performed by the one
of the helper thread and master thread and storing the result in
the lookup table for future computation reuse.
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Wu
Sanchez
Archambault
US 6,625,725 Bl Sep. 23, 2003
US 7,458,065 B2 Nov. 25, 2008
US 2005/0246700 Al Nov. 3, 2005
2
Appeal2013-004242
Application 11/688,090
Youfeng Wu, Donag-Yuan Chen, and Jesse Fang, Better Exploration of
Region-Level Value Locality with Integrated Computation Reuse and Value
Prediction IEEE 98-108 (2001) (hereinafter, "Wu").
REJECTIONS
Claims 1, 5, 6, 14, 16, 20, 21, 28, and 29 stand rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Wu '725 (Final Act. 9-12).
Claims 7, 12, 13, 15, and 22 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over Wu (Final Act. 12-15).
Claims 2 and 17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Wu '725 and Wu (Final Act. 15-16).
Claims 3, 4, 18, and 19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as
being unpatentable over Wu '725 and Sanchez (Final Act. 16-17).
Claims 8-11 and 23-25 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Wu and Archambault (Final Act. 17-19).
We have only considered those arguments that Appellants actually
raised in the Briefs. Arguments Appellants could have made but chose not
to make in the Briefs have not been considered and are deemed to be
waived. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv) (2012).
ISSUE 1
35 U.S.C. § 103(a): Claims 1, 5, 6, 14, 16, 20, 21, 28, and 29
Appellants assert their invention is not obvious over Wu '725 (App.
Br. 11-17). The issue presented by the arguments is:
Issue 1: Has the Examiner erred in finding Wu '725 teaches or
suggests:
3
Appeal2013-004242
Application 11/688,090
creating a helper thread separate from a master thread for the
region of software code, wherein one of the helper thread and
master thread performs a computation specified in the region of
software code, and wherein the other of the helper thread and
master thread looks up a value of the computation previously
executed and stored in a lookup table,
as recited in independent claim 1 and commensurately recited in
independent claims 14 and 16?
ANALYSIS
Appellants argue Wu '725 teaches responsive to the main thread,
locating the value in the reuse buffer, retrieving the value and then waiting
for a commit or squash command from the helper thread based on the helper
thread's computation (App. Br. 14--15). However, Appellants contend, Wu
'725 does not teach responsive to the main thread locating the value in the
reuse buffer, retrieving the value from the reuse buffer and ignoring the
helper thread's computation (id. at 15).
We agree with the Examiner that Wu '725 teaches when reuse region
is encountered and a matching instance is found in the reuse buffer, the
previous result is reused (Ans. 13). Wu '725 teaches if a matching instance
is not found, the reuse region is executed and the results can be stored for
later reuse (Ans. 13-14). However, the Examiner determines "the claim
language does not indicate that the computation is performed at the same
time the value of the computation previously executed is being looked up"
(Ans. 14). Although we agree with the Examiner these two functions do not
need to be performed at the same time, the claim language does require both
functions to be performed when a potential computation reuse opportunity is
identified, by creating a helper thread (claim 1 ). Specifically, the claim
4
Appeal2013-004242
Application 11/688,090
recites "creating a helper thread separate from a master thread" where one of
the thread performs a computation specified in the region of software code
and the other thread looks up a value of the computation previously
executed.
Thus, we agree with Appellants that the Examiner has not shown Wu
'725 teaches or suggests the limitations recited in independent claim 1 and
commensurately recited in claims 14 and 16. Dependent claims 5, 6, 20, 21,
28, and 29, stand with their respective independent claims.
Since we agree with at least one of the arguments advanced by
Appellants, we need not reach the merits of Appellants' other arguments.
Therefore, we reverse the rejection of claims 1, 5, 6, 14, 16, 20, 21, 28, and
29 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) for obviousness over Wu '725.
ISSUE 2
35 U.S.C. § 103(a): Claims 7, 12, 13, 15, and 22
Appellants assert their invention is not obvious over Wu (App. Br.
17-18). The issue presented by the arguments is:
Issue 2: Has the Examiner erred in concluding Wu teaches or
suggests "estimating a profitability cost of performing computations of each
identified code region; building a candidate list of the code regions for
computation reuse based on the estimated profitability cost," as recited in
claim 7?
5
Appeal2013-004242
Application 11/688,090
ANALYSIS
Appellants argue although Wu teaches building a list of its
computation regions, in which only highly reusable instructions are allowed,
Wu does not teach building the list of computation regions based on
speedup measurements (App. Br. 18).
The Examiner finds Wu suggests instructions not meeting criteria
described will not be grouped into a computation region, "thus implying that
the computation regions are formed [(building a candidate list)] based on
candidate instructions that prove to have a high reusability rate [ (estimated
profitability cost)]" (Ans. 16). We agree with the Examiner Wu teaches or
at least suggest computation regions are formed based on candidate
instructions that prove to have a high reusability rate, a criteria; however, we
agree with Appellants that Wu's high reusability rate does not teach or
suggest profitability cost (Reply Br. 5---6; see e.g. Spec. i-fi-1 40, 56- 57).
Specifically, we agree with Appellants that highly reusable code does not
estimate a profitability cost. Wu teaches grouping candidate instructions
into multi-entry multi-exit regions with constraints including high reusability
rate (Wu, 104, § 6.1 ). However, we determine the profitability cost is
determined using various factors such as extra overhead incurred from the
master thread and the helper thread executing (Spec. i140, 56-57). Thus, we
are not persuaded the type of criteria used by Wu, high reusability rate, is
analogous to the profitability cost recited.
Accordingly, we are persuaded the Examiner has not shown Wu
teaches or suggests the limitations as recited in independent claim 7 and
commensurately recited independent claims 15 and 22. Dependent claims
12 and 13 stand with independent claim 7. Therefore, we cannot sustain the
6
Appeal2013-004242
Application 11/688,090
rejection of claims 7, 12, 13, 15, and 22 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) for
obviousness over Wu.
ISSUE 3
35 U.S.C. § 103(a): Claims 2--4, 8-11, 17-19, and 23-25
The remaining claims depend from independent claims 1, 7, 16, and
22. The Examiner has not shown the additional cited references cure the
deficiencies of Wu '725 and Wu, respectively.
Accordingly, claims 2--4, 8-11, 17-19, and 23-25 stand with their
respective independent claims. Therefore, we cannot sustain the rejection of
claims 2--4, 8-11, 17-19, and 23-25 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) for
obviousness.
DECISION
The Examiner's rejection of claims 1, 5, 6, 14, 16, 20, 21, 28, and 29
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Wu '725 is reversed.
The Examiner's rejection of claims 7, 12, 13, 15, and 22 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Wu is reversed.
The Examiner's rejection of claims 2 and 17 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over Wu '725 and Wu is reversed.
The Examiner's rejection of claims 3, 4, 18, and 19 under 35 U.S.C.
§103(a) as being unpatentable over Wu '725 and Sanchez is reversed.
The Examiner's rejection of claims 8-11 and 23-25 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 (a) as being unpatentable over Wu and Archambault is reversed.
7
Appeal2013-004242
Application 11/688,090
dw
REVERSED
8