Ex Parte Koob et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 28, 2016

13449833 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 28, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/449,833 04/18/2012
23696 7590 09/30/2016
QUALCOMM INCORPORATED
5775 MOREHOUSE DR.
SAN DIEGO, CA 92121
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Christopher Edward Koob
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.
111183 7457
EXAMINER
DEWAN,KAMALK
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2163
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/30/2016 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):
us-docketing@qualcomm.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte CHRISTOPHER EDWARD KOOB and
DANA M. VANTREASE
Appeal2015-005514
Application 13/449,833
Technology Center 2100
Before LINZY T. McCARTNEY, CARLL. SILVERMAN, and
JOHN D. HAMANN, Administrative Patent Judges.
McCARTNEY, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a rejection of claims
1-36. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We REVERSE.
Appeal2015-005514
Application 13/449,833
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The present patent application concerns "systems and methods for
maintaining cache coherency in multiprocessor systems." Spec. i-f 1. Claims
1, 18, and 34--36 are independent. Claim 1 illustrates the claimed subject
matter:
1. A method of maintaining coherency in a multi-processor
system comprising:
establishing a state including: a write-data-invalid (WDI)
state for a first cache entry in a first cache, wherein the WDI state
comprises permission for a first processor associated with the
first cache, to write to one or more higher levels of memory
hierarchy for a write request to the cache entry by the first
processor, and wherein the WDI state is treated as an invalid state
for a read request to the first cache entry by the first processor.
REJECTIONS
Claims 1-12, 15-29, and 33-36 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) as anticipated by Cantin (US 2008/0147987 Al; June 19, 2008).
Claims 13, 14, and 30-32 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Cantin and Park (US 7,802,054 B2; Sept. 21, 2010).
ANALYSIS
The Examiner found Cantin's modified invalid state, Imn, discloses
the "write-data-invalid (WDI) state" recited in the pending independent
claims. See Final Act. 14, 20, 23-27. Appellants contend the Examiner
erred because Cantin's Imn state concerns a prediction, not a ''permission for
a first processor associated with the first cache, to write to one or more
2
Appeal2015-005514
Application 13/449,833
higher levels of memory hierarchy for a write request to the cache entry" as
recited in claim 1. See App. Br. 5-10; Reply Br. 1--4. 1
We find Appellants' arguments persuasive. With respect to the
recited "write-data-invalid (WDI) state," the Examiner found portions of
Cantin that concern a conventional memory system and coherency protocol
and that describe how Cantin's invention transitions between the invalid and
modified invalid states disclose the WDI state. See, e.g., Final Act. 14--15
(citing Cantin i-fi-1 8, 61, 72); Ans. 3---6 (citing Cantin i-fi-1 6-8, 21, 46, 60, 61,
79, Figs. 1, 2, 7A, 7B). However, the cited portions do not establish that
Cantin's Imn state includes "permission ... to write to one or more higher
levels of memory hierarchy for a write request to the cache entry" as recited
in claim 1. As argued by Appellants, Cantin discloses that the Imn state
simply "indicates that the cache line is ... invalid" and "that at least one
cached valid copy of the data is likely to reside within the local SMP node
and no valid copies exist in any remote node." Cantin i140. Neither of these
functions discloses the "permission" ... to write" at issue. Based on this
record, we do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of claims 1-12, 15-29,
and 33-36 as anticipated by Cantin and claims 13, 14, and 30-32 as obvious
over Cantin and Park.
The Examiner also objected to claims 2, 3, 19 and 20 because of
various informalities. Final Act. 12. Appellants contend the Examiner's
objections lack sufficient supporting rationale and ask that we withdraw
these objections. App. Br. 13-14. However, objections are addressable by
1 Appellants' reply brief lacks page numbers. We treat the reply brief as if
the brief were numbered starting with the page containing the
"Remarks/ Arguments" header.
3
Appeal2015-005514
Application 13/449,833
petition to the Director, not appeal to the Board. See MPEP § 706.01; 35
U.S.C. §§ 6, 134(a). Accordingly, we will not consider Appellants' request
to withdraw the Examiner's objections.
DECISION
We reverse the Examiner's rejections of claims 1-36.
REVERSED
4