Ex Parte Heinrich et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardFeb 26, 201612890476 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 26, 2016) Copy Citation 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 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation