Ex Parte Rogers et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jan 25, 2018

14045114 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 25, 2018)

United States Patent and Trademark Office
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
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
14/045,114 10/03/2013 Timothy G. Rogers 1458-120420 3261
109712 7590 01/29/2018
Advanced Micro Devices, Inc.
c/o Davidson Sheehan LLP
8834 North Capital of TX Hwy
Suite 100
Austin, TX 78759
EXAMINER
PAN, DANIEL H
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2182
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
01/29/2018 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
AMD@DS-patent.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte TIMOTHY G. ROGERS, BRADFORD M. BECKMANN, and
JAMES M. O’CONNOR
Appeal 2017-007704
Application 14/045,1141
Technology Center 2100
Before ROBERT E. NAPPI, CARL L. SILVERMAN, and
JASON M. REPKO, Administrative Patent Judges.
SILVERMAN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
Final Rejection of claims 1—19, which constitute the only claims pending.
We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
1 The real party in interest is identified as Advanced Micro Devices, Inc.
App. Br. 1.
Appeal 2017-007704
Application 14/045,114
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The invention relates to a single instruction, multiple data (SIMD)
unit coupled to a register file, and a realignment element communicating
with the register file and the SIMD unit. Abstract; Spec. 2, 3, 5. Claims
1 and 9, reproduced below, are exemplary of the subject matter on appeal
(emphasis added):
1. A data processor comprising:
a realignment element in communication with a register file
having first and second portions and a single instruction, multiple data
(SIMD) unit having at least first and second lanes corresponding to
said first and second portions of the register file, the realignment
element configured to selectively realign conveyance of data between
the first portion of the register file and the first lane of the SIMD unit
to between the first portion of the register file and the second lane of
the SIMD unit.
App. Br. 12 (Claims Appendix).
9. A data processor as set forth in claim 1 wherein the realignment
element is configured to selectively realign the conveyance of the data
in response to identifying that a threshold number of lanes of the
SIMD unit are not utilized.
Id. at 13.
THE REJECTIONS
Claims 1,5,6, 9-13, 15, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.
§ 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Tanaka et al. (US 2005/0216699 Al;
pub. September 29, 2005) (“Tanaka”). Final Act. 2—6.
Claims 2, 3, 14, 18, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over Tanaka in view of Luick et al. (US 7,783,860 B2;
iss. August 24, 2010) (“Luick”). Final Act. 7—9.
2
Appeal 2017-007704
Application 14/045,114
Claims 4, 7, and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Tanaka, Luick, and Swoboda et al. (US 5,329,471; issued
July 12, 1994) (“Swoboda”). Final Act. 10.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over
Tanaka in view of Shah et al. (US 2012/0019542 Al; pub. January 26,
2012). Final Act. 10-11.
ANALYSIS
The §102 rejection
Appellants argue the Examiner errs in finding Tanaka teaches the
claim 1 limitation “the realignment element configured to selectively realign
conveyance of data between the first portion of the register file and the first
lane of the SIMD unit to between the first portion of the register file and the
second lane of the SIMD unit.” App. Br. 4—6. According to Appellants,
Tanaka teaches a SIMD processor in which a stored pattern is provided to
processing elements via a network 30, which the Examiner finds
corresponds to the realignment element of claim 1. Id. at 4 (citing Tanaka
7, 8, 158; Fig. 5; Final Act. 2). Appellants then argue, “unlike claim 1,
which recites realigning data from a portion of a register file from a first lane
to a second lane of a SIMD unit, Tanaka teaches that the network 30
provides data from an input terminal to all the processing elements of the
SIMD unit.” Id. (citing TanakaH 100-103). Appellants argue, because
Tanaka network 30 “provides data from the input terminal to all the
processing elements, there is no change in which processing element is
providing the data, and therefore no realignment of data by the network in
any manner.” Id. at 4—5.
3
Appeal 2017-007704
Application 14/045,114
Appellants further argue Tanaka teaches transferring data between
processing elements (from one processing unit to another based on a
network pattern value) and this is not the same or equivalent to “realigning
data from between a first portion of a register file and a first lane of an
SIMD unit to between a first portion of a register file and a second lane of
the SIMD unit.” Id. at 5—6 (citing Tanaka ]Hf 113, 114). According to
Appellants, the Examiner errs in finding the Tanaka select processing unit
selection of inputs based on a mode of operation results in a change in which
processing element is provide the data. Id. at 5—6 (citing Tanaka 113,
114). In particular, Appellants argue Tanaka teaches the operation is
performed on the data stored at the registers, but the result is then provided
to all of the processing units, not realigning the conveyance of data from one
lane of an SIMD to another. Id.
The Examiner finds:
Tanaka “teaches realignment of data by transferring between the
first portion (see higher order data [H]) from the register [15] and
the first lane (see the PEOH path via the left select processing
unit 50) to between the first portion (see the same higher order
data H) and second lane (see the PEOL path via the right select
processing unit 50). The PEOH and PEOL are combined as 16-
bit output of the network 30 to the Operation Unit 40 in fig. 1.
The 8-bit PEOH and 8-bit PEOL must be the input to the
operating unit 40. Therefore, the operation unit 40 must have a
corresponding input port/lane for each of the 8-bit PEOH and 8-
bit PEOL. See Illustration by examiner in Page 3 above.
Ans. 12—13 (See also Examiner illustration combining Tanaka Figs. 1 and 5
at Ans. 3).
4
Appeal 2017-007704
Application 14/045,114
[E]ach of the select processing unit (see fig.5 [50]) can select one
out of the sixteen inputs. For example, if the H data on line 31 is
not selected by select processing unit 50 PEOH, the same H data
(e.g. the first portion) can be selected by the select processing
unit 50 PEOL which is adjacent to +the select processing unit 50
PEOH. Therefore, there is a realignment of data from one path to
another path.
Id at 13.
The Examiner finds:
[NJowhere does applicant claim recite whether the realignment
of the data between the first portion and first lane to between the
first portion and the second lane is only applicable to one
processing element, and not applicable to all process[] ... the
data (e.g. see higher order data H in line 31 output from the
register file [15] in fig.5) conveyed to different processing units
(such as PEO-PE7) can be changed from being conveyed to one
processing unit (e.g. PEO) to being conveyed to a different
processing unit (e.g. PEI ). Although the same data (such as H)
is always provided to all the processing units (PEs), it is not
necessarily being selected by the 16 to 1 select processing unit
50 of all PEs. Therefore, Tanaka teaches the realign of the
conveyance of data as claimed.
Id. at 13—14.
[E]ach PE has 2 lanes (see the path of 00/PEOH to select
processing unit 50 on the left, and another path 01 /PEOL to the
select processing unit 50 on the right in PEO in Fig.5). Tanaka
teaches realigning data from between a first portion (e.g. see H
00) of a register file [15] and a first lane (see path of PEOH on
the left) of an SIMD unit to between a first portion (see the same
H 00 data) of a register file [15] and a second lane of the SIMD
unit (see another path with the same H 00 data transferred to
PEOL on the right in PEO in Fig.5).
Id. at 14.
5
Appeal 2017-007704
Application 14/045,114
We are not persuaded by Appellants’ arguments and agree, instead,
with the Examiner’s findings that Tanaka anticipates claim 1. A claim is
anticipated only if each and every element as set forth in the claims is found,
either expressly or inherently described in a single prior art reference, and
arranged as required by the claim. Verdegaal Bros., Inc. v. Union Oil Co. of
Cal., 814 F.2d 628, 631 (Fed. Cir. 1987). See also In re Crish, 393 F.3d
1253, 1256 (Fed. Cir. 2004).
Tanaka describes a SIMD structure employing registers wherein the
parallel operation of the processor accesses different registers. Tanaka
20-22, Figs. 1, 5. Appellants present no persuasive arguments the
Examiner’s findings and claim interpretation are unreasonable, overbroad, or
inconsistent with the Specification. Claim terms in a patent application are
given the broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the
Specification, as understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. Crish, 393
F.3d at 1256. Our reviewing court states that “the words of a claim ‘are
generally given their ordinary and customary meaning.’” Phillips v. AWH
Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1312 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc)(intemal citations
omitted).
In view of the above, we sustain the rejection of claim 1, and
independent claims 10 and 12 as these claims are argued together with claim
1. App. Br. 7. We sustain the rejection of dependent claims 5, 6, 11—13, and
15 as these claims are not argued separately. See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(l)(iv).
Appellants argue Tanaka does not teach the dependent claim 9
limitation “wherein the realignment element is configured to selectively
6
Appeal 2017-007704
Application 14/045,114
realign the conveyance of the data in response to identifying that a threshold
number of lanes of the SIMD unit are not utilized.” App. Br. 6—7.
According to Appellants, the Examiner errs in finding Tanaka teaches the
limitation at Figure 8 through a mode select signal that specifies a mode of
operation. Id. (citing Tanaka Fig. 8). According to Appellants, Tanaka’s
mode select signal specifies which bits of a processor are used to determine
a stored pattern value to select data provided to processing elements of a
processor and “Tanaka nowhere discloses that the mode select signal is
based on or changed in response to identifying that a threshold number of
lanes of a SIMD unit are not utilized.” Id. (citing Tanaka 1114); see also
Reply Br. 6—7.
The Examiner finds:
Tanaka teaches a data processor as set forth in claim 1 wherein
the realignment element is configured to selectively realign the
conveyance of the data (see the network 30 includes the
selection processing unit 50 in fig.7) in response to identifying
that a threshold number [8PE mode/4PE mode] of the SIMD
unit are not used (see fig.8 showing the select signal converting
unit for select processing unit 50 in fig.7; see the PE mode that
specifies either 8PE mode or 4PE mode to be selected (or not
selected)).
Final Act. 4; Ans. 4.
We agree with the Examiner’s findings and, therefore, we sustain the
rejection of claim 9, and dependent claim 15 which is argued together with
claim 9.
The §103 rejections
7
Appeal 2017-007704
Application 14/045,114
Appellants argue the Examiner errs in finding the combination of
Tanaka and the additional cited references teaches dependent claims 2-4, 7,
8, 14, and 17—19. App. Br. 7—10. According to Appellants, none of the
additional references teaches the limitations of the independent claims and
Appellants present no substantive arguments regarding the dependent
claims. Id. As discussed in connection with claim 1, supra, we find Tanaka
teaches the limitations of the independent claims.
Therefore, we sustain the rejection of dependent claims 2—4, 7, 8, 14,
and 17—19.
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1—19.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(l)(iv).
AFFIRMED
8