Ex Parte Gorti et al

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Feb 26, 2016

12948710 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Feb. 26, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
12/948,710 11/17/2010 Atchyuth K. Gorti
109712 7590 03/01/2016
Advanced Micro Devices, Inc,
c/o Davidson Sheehan LLP
700 Lavaca
Suite 1400-2323
Austin, TX 78701
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.
1458-100175 4402
EXAMINER
LE, DIEU MINH T
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2114
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/01/2016 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):
docketing@ds-patent.com
caitlin.taylor@ds-patent.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte ATCHYUTH K. GORTI,
VANCE THREATT, and
VENKAT K. KUCHIPUDI
Appeal2014-003975
Application 12/948, 710
Technology Center 2100
Before MAHSHID D. SAADAT, JOHNNY A. KUMAR, and
JON M. JURGOV AN, Administrative Patent Judges.
SAADAT, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants 1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of
claims 1-20, which are all the pending claims in this application. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Advanced Micro
Devices, Inc. (App. Br. 1 ).
Appeal2014-003975
Application 12/948, 710
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
Appellants' invention relates to improving the efficiency of debugging
a computer processor (Spec. if 1 ). Claim 1 is illustrative of the invention and
reads as follows:
1. A method comprising:
executing a first test pattern from a plurality of test
patterns of a logic built-in self test (LBIST);
generating a first value based on the first test pattern;
comparing the first value to a second value; and
terminating the LBIST in response to determining that
the first value does not equal the second value.
The Examiner's Rejection
Claims 1-20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by
Chelstrom et al. (US 2009/0083594 Al; l\1ar. 26, 2009) (see Ans. 3-11).
Issues on Appeal
Appellants' contentions present us with the following issues:
1. Did the Examiner err in finding Chelstrom discloses "terminating the
LBIST in response to determining that the first value does not equal the
second value," as recited in independent claim 1?
2. Did the Examiner err in finding Chelstrom discloses "executing a
second test pattern from the plurality of test patterns of the LBIST in
2
Appeal2014-003975
Application 12/948, 710
response to determining that the first value equals the second value," as
recited in claim 2? 2
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner's rejection in light of Appellants'
contentions that the Examiner erred. We disagree with Appellants'
conclusions.
Claim 1
The Examiner finds Chelstrom's logic built-in self test (LBIST)
compares a test signature to an expected signature, determines the logic is
not operating properly if the signatures do not match, and then terminates the
test operation via a stop signal (Ans. 14--16, citing Chelstrom i-fi-171, 79).
The Examiner finds this test sequence of Chelstrom discloses "terminating
the LBIST in response to determining that the first value does not equal the
second value'; (id.).
Appellants contend Chelstrom discloses termination of a built-in self
test follows a comparison of the data signature to the expected data
signature, but does not disclose a causative relationship between the
comparison and the termination of the LBIST (App. Br. 3---6; Reply Br. 1).
Appellants argue the result of Chelstrom' s comparison step, i.e., whether the
comparison shows a match or shows a mismatch, does not affect the
subsequent termination of the operation (id.).
2 Separate patentability is not argued for claims 3-20. (See App. Br. 8.)
Except for our ultimate decision, these claims are not discussed further.
3
Appeal2014-003975
Application 12/948, 710
Appellants' contentions do not persuade us of Examiner error. Claim
1 does not require a specific causative and direct relationship between
determining the test values are not equal and terminating the test, such as a
temporal relationship that specifies when the test terminates. Thus, we agree
with the Examiner's broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim
limitation, based on the claim language and Appellants' disclosure (see
Spec. i-fi-15, 29), that terminating Chelstrom's LBIST following a failed test
discloses terminating the test "in response to" determining the first test value
does not equal the second value (see Ans. 14--16).
Claim 2
Appellants contend Chelstrom does not disclose the following
alternatives provided in claims 1 and 2: 1) the first value does not equal the
second value, and therefore the LBIST is terminated; or 2) the first value
equals the second value, and therefore the second test pattern is executed
(App. Br. 7-8; Reply Br. 2). Appellants argue Chelstrom does not disclose
executing a second test pattern when the data signature matches the expected
data signature, but instead discloses terminating a self test operation whether
the data signature matches the expected data signature or not (id.).
Appellants' contentions are not persuasive of Examiner error. Claim
2 does not require any specific relationship between the result of the first test
pattern comparison and executing a second test pattern. We agree with the
Examiner's finding that Chelstrom discloses testing multiple logic cores of a
microprocessor (Ans. 16-19, citing Chelstrom i-fi-1 65, 71; see also Chelstrom
i1 45, microprocessor includes a plurality of processor cores). Thus, in light
of the Examiner's broadest reasonable interpretation of claim 2, we agree
that Chelstrom's LBIST executes a second test pattern "in response to" a
4
Appeal2014-003975
Application 12/948, 710
passed test when the first core tested is functioning properly and the test then
moves to a second core.
DECISION
The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1-20 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).
AFFIRMED
5