Ex Parte HEINRICH et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 26, 2016

12890476 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 26, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/890,476 09/24/2010
102324 7590 03/01/2016
Artegis Law Group, LLP/NVIDIA
7710 Cherry Park Drive Suite T #104
Houston, TX 77095
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Steven James HEINRICH
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.
NVDA/MA-09-0329-USO-US 1 8439
EXAMINER
TSUI, DANIEL D
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2132
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):
kcruz@artegislaw.com
ALGdocketing@artegislaw.com
mmccauley@artegislaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte STEVEN JAMES HEINRICH, ALEXANDER L. MINKIN,
BRETT W. COON, RAJESHW ARAN SEL V ANESAN,
ROBERT STEVEN GLANVILLE, CHARLES MCCARVER,
ANJANA RAJENDRAN, STEW ART GLENN CARL TON,
JOHN R. NICKOLLS, and BRIAN FAHS
Appeal2014-005148
Application 12/890,476
Technology Center 2100
Before JAMES R. HUGHES, CATHERINE SHIANG, and
MONICA S. ULLAGADDI, Administrative Patent Judges.
SHIANG, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
rejection of claims 1-20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b). We affirm.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The present invention relates to multi-threaded processing. See
generally Spec. 1. Claim 1 is exemplary:
Appeal2014-005148
Application 12/890,476
1. A method for managing a parallel cache hierarchy in a processing
unit, the method comprising:
receiving an instruction that includes a cache operations modifier
that identifies a level of the parallel cache hierarchy in which to cache
data associated with the instruction; and
implementing a cache replacement policy based on the cache
operations modifier.
Fujimoto
Desota
Munshi
Srivastava
Fairhurst
Sprangle
Roberts
References and Rejections
us 5,513,353
US 2003/0093622 Al
US 2004/0155885 Al
US 2008/0065832 Al
US 2009/0037661 Al
US 2009/0172291 Al
US 2011/0093654 Al
Apr. 30, 1996
May 15, 2003
Aug. 12, 2004
Mar. 13, 2008
Feb. 5,2009
Jul. 2, 2009
Apr. 21, 2011
Claims 1, 2, 4, 11, 12, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Srivastava and Desota.
Claims 3, 5, 13, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Srivastava, Desota, and Roberts.
Claims 6, 7, 16, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Srivastava, Desota, Roberts, and Sprangle.
Claims 8, 10, 18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Srivastava, Desota, Fujimoto, and Munshi.
Claims 9 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Srivastava, Desota, and Fairhurst.
2
Appeal2014-005148
Application 12/890,476
ANALYSIS
The Obviousness Rejection
On this record, we find the Examiner did not err in rejecting claim 1.
We disagree with Appellants' arguments (App. Br. 6-10), and agree
with and adopt the Examiner's findings and conclusions on pages 2--4 of the
Answer as our own. Therefore, we limit our discussion to the following
points for emphasis.
Appellants contend the secondary reference Desota does not teach
"implementing a cache replacement policy based on the cache operations
modifier," as recited in claim 1. See App. Br. 6-7. In particular, Appellants
assert Desota does not teach "based on the cache operations modifier." App.
Br. 7. Appellants cite undated Wikipedia entries, and further contend "a
cache line replacement operation is different from the cache line policy
itself." App. Br. 8. Appellants assert "one would not reasonably equate the
combination of a request that indicates a specific cache to store returned data
(Srivastava) and a specific cache replacement policy (Desota) with
implementing a cache replacement policy based on a cache operations
modifier (claim 1 )." App. Br. 8.
Appellants fail to show reversible error. In response to Appellants'
arguments, the Examiner provides comprehensive findings showing Desota
and Srivastava collectively teach the disputed claim limitation. See Ans. 2-
4. Appellants fail to adequately respond to such findings and therefore, fail
to show specific fault in the Examiner's findings. See In re Baxter Travenol
3
Appeal2014-005148
Application 12/890,476
Labs., 952 F.2d 388, 391 (Fed. Cir. 1991) ("It is not the function of this
court [or this Board] to examine the claims in greater detail than argued by
an appellant, looking for [patentable] distinctions over the prior art.").
Further, we have examined the Examiner's findings, and such
findings are reasonable. The Examiner finds-and Appellants fail to
adequately dispute-Srivastava teaches "based on the cache operations
modifier." See Ans. 2; Srivastava Fig. 3, i-f 21 ("the request may indicate the
specific cache (or cache level) that is to store data .... ").
The Examiner further finds Desota teaches "implementing a cache
replacement policy." See Ans. 2; Final Rej. 2; Desota i-f 34. In fact,
Appellants concede Desota teaches a cache replacement policy. See App.
Br. 8 ("a specific cache replacement policy (Desota)"). Therefore, the
Examiner finds Srivastava and Desota collectively teach "implementing a
cache replacement policy based on the cache operations modifier." See Ans.
2; Final Rej. 2. Applying the Desota technique in the Srivastava method
would have predictably used prior art elements according to their established
functions-an obvious improvement. See KSR Int'! Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550
U.S. 398, 417 (2007).
In addition, because the Examiner relies on the combination of
Srivastava and Desota to teach the disputed claim limitations, Appellants
cannot establish nonobviousness by attacking Desota individually. See In re
Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Finally, Appellants' undated Wikipedia entries are not credible
evidence, because the meaning of a claim term "is the meaning that the term
would have to a person of ordinary skill in the art in question at the time of
the invention, i.e., as of the effective filing date of the patent application."
4
Appeal2014-005148
Application 12/890,476
Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1313 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (citations
omitted) (en bane) (emphasis added). In any event, Appellants' arguments
are not commensurate with the scope of the claim, as the disputed claim
limitation does not recite "cache line replacement operation" or "cache line
policy."
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 1, and
corresponding dependent claims for similar reasons.
For similar reasons, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 11,
and corresponding dependent claims.
DECISION
The Examiner's decision rejecting 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