Ex Parte Ryan et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 27, 2014

11513357 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 27, 2014)

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.
11/513,357 08/31/2006 Thomas E. Ryan 1972.0280000 2161
91505 7590 03/28/2014
Sterne, Kessler, Goldstein & Fox P.L.L.C.
1100 New York Avenue N.W.
Washington, DC 20005
EXAMINER
MA, TIZE
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2613
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/28/2014 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte THOMAS E. RYAN, CARRELL R. KILLEBREW, JR.,
MARK C. FOWLER, DONALD W. CHEREPACHA, and
PHILIP ROGERS
____________

Appeal 2011-013038
Application 11/513,357
Technology Center 2600
____________

Before JASON V. MORGAN, LARRY J. HUME, and
LINZY T. McCARTNEY, Administrative Patent Judges.

McCARTNEY, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s final
rejection of claims 1-4, 8-14, 17, 18, and 21-28. Claims 5-7, 15, 16, 19, and
20 are canceled. We heard oral argument on the appeal on March 18, 2014.
We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.

Appeal 2011-013038
Application 11/513,357

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants’ invention concerns “a technique and a computer system to
reduce the throughput constraints imposed by a communications path
between a bridging device and a GPU [i.e., a graphics processing unit].”
Spec. ¶ 0046. Claim 1 illustrates the claimed subject matter and recites the
following:
1. A computer system comprising:
a system memory;
a bridging device coupled to the system memory, the
bridging device including a memory controller and a first
plurality of functional modules;
a graphics processor unit (GPU) coupled to one port of
the bridging device and including a second plurality of
functional modules, corresponding ones of the first and second
plurality of functional modules being configurable to perform
identical functions, only one of the modules performing a
selected one of the identical functions; and
a central processing unit (CPU) coupled to another port
of the bridging device;
wherein the GPU and the CPU access the system
memory via the memory controller.
REJECTIONS AND PRIOR ART
Claims 1-4, 8, 9, 12-14, 17, and 24-28 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Diard (US 7,383,412 B1; June 3, 2008)
in view of Kuo (US 2007/0040839 A1; February 22, 2007).
Appeal 2011-013038
Application 11/513,357

3
Claims 10 and 11 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Diard in view of Kuo and further in view of Mergard (US
5,941,968; August 24, 1999).
Claims 18 and 21-23 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Mergard in view of Diard.

ISSUES
Appellants’ briefing presents substantive arguments concerning only
claim 1; therefore, the pending claims stand or fall with claim 1. Appellants’
briefing raises the following three issues concerning claim 1:
1. Does the combination of Diard and Kuo teach or suggest the recited
“bridging device”?
2. Does the combination of Diard and Kuo teach or suggest the recited
“memory controller”?
3. Did the Examiner provide sufficient supporting rationale for the
obviousness rejection?

ANALYSIS
“Bridging Device”
The Examiner concludes Diard suggests this element. The Examiner
finds Diard discloses a system that includes multiple interconnected GPUs
and suggests integrating at least one of the GPUs into a “north bridge.”
(Ans. at 5, 17.) The Examiner explains it was well known in the art that a
north bridge serves as a memory controller for CPU and GPU access to
Appeal 2011-013038
Application 11/513,357

4
system memory. (Id. at 17.) The Examiner points out that Appellants’ own
specification admits that a north bridge establishes communication paths
between the CPU, GPU, and system memory, and enables the CPU and GPU
to share the system memory. (Id. at 17-18 (citing Spec. ¶ 0004).) The
Examiner also notes at least one other prior art reference discloses a GPU-
north bridge device that satisfies this element. (Id. at 17.) Based on these
findings, the Examiner determines Diard suggests the claimed “bridging
device.” (Id. at 18.)
Appellants assert the Examiner erroneously finds a GPU can
“represent” a bridging device. (See App. Br. at 15, 18.) Appellants argue
Diard makes clear that a GPU and a bridging device are not interchangeable.
(Id. at 16-17.) Appellants also take issue with the Examiner’s finding that
Diard suggests integrating a GPU into a north bridge. Appellants contend
that, at best, Diard suggests placing a GPU and a north bridge on the same
chip. (Id. at 16.) Finally, Appellants contend, without explanation, that
Diard does not teach or suggest (1) a GPU coupled to a bridging device and
(2) a bridging device including the recited “functional modules.” (Id. at 17.)
We agree with the Examiner. The Examiner does not conclude that a
GPU, by itself, can represent the claimed bridging device. Rather, the
Examiner finds Diard teaches integrating a GPU into a particular bridging
device—namely, a north bridge—and concludes the integrated device
satisfies this claim element. (See Ans. at 17-18.) And contrary to
Appellants’ assertion, the Examiner correctly finds Diard suggests
Appeal 2011-013038
Application 11/513,357

5
integrating a GPU into a north bridge, not simply placing a GPU and a north
bridge on the same chip:
Any or all of the GPUs or other components may be mounted
on an expansion card, mounted directly on a system
motherboard, or integrated into a system chipset component
(e.g., into the “north bridge” chip of one commonly used PC
system architecture).
Diard, col. 9, ll. 55-59 (emphasis added). (See also Ans. at 17.)
Even if Appellants were correct that Diard merely discloses placing a
GPU and a north bridge on the same chip, the resulting chip would serve as
a “bridging device.” Such a chip would have a plurality of functional
modules (the modules included in the GPU), a memory controller (the north
bridge) and, for the reasons explained by the Examiner, the recited
interconnections and the ability to allow the GPU and CPU to access system
memory, (see Ans. at 17-18). In any event, simply integrating known
components is generally insufficient to establish patentability. In re Larson,
340 F.2d 965, 968 (CCPA 1965) (“[T]he use of a one piece construction
instead of the structure disclosed in [the prior art] would be merely a matter
of obvious engineering choice.”).
As to Appellants’ cursory assertions that Diard does not teach or
suggest (1) a GPU coupled to a bridging device and (2) a bridging device
including the recited “functional modules,” we conclude Appellants fail to
present developed arguments on these points and have therefore waived
them. Cf. In re Lovin, 652 F.3d 1349, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2011); see also
SmithKline Beecham Corp. v. Apotex Corp., 439 F.3d 1312, 1319-20 (Fed.
Appeal 2011-013038
Application 11/513,357

6
Cir. 2006). Regardless, for the reasons set forth by the Examiner, we agree
Diard suggests both limitations.
“Memory Controller”
The Examiner also concludes Diard suggests this element. The
Examiner notes Diard discloses a direct memory access (“DMA”) controller
but explains “[a] north bridge is a memory controller . . . that enables the
CPU and the GPU to effectively share a single system memory.” (Ans. at 5-
6.)
Appellants seize on the Examiner’s mention of the DMA controller
and contend the Examiner relies on the DMA controller to teach the recited
“memory controller.” (See, e.g., App. Br. at 18.) Appellants argue the
DMA controller rests outside the GPUs and therefore Diard does not
disclose a “bridging device including a memory controller.” (Id.)
Appellants also assert neither the GPUs nor the CPU access system memory
through the DMA controller as required by claim 1. (Id. at 18-19.)
Appellants’ arguments concerning the DMA controller are misplaced.
Although the Examiner makes passing reference to the DMA controller
during discussion of this element, (see, e.g., Ans. at 5), the Examiner
explicitly and repeatedly finds the north bridge serves as the recited
“memory controller”: “A north bridge is a memory controller . . . that
enables the CPU and the GPU to effectively share a single system memory,”
(id. at 5-6). (See also id. at 17 (“It has been well known to one of ordinary
skill in the art . . . that a north bridge . . . acts as a memory controller for
Appeal 2011-013038
Application 11/513,357

7
CPU and GPU to access the system memory.”).) We agree with the
Examiner that Diard suggests this element.
Sufficiency of the Obviousness Rejection
Finally, Appellants assert the Examiner’s rejection lacks “articulated
reasoning with some rational underpinning,” relies on improper speculation,
and exhibits impermissible hindsight bias. (App. Br. at 19-20.)
We disagree. Appellants’ contentions consist of conclusory
statements and case citations and lack the developed argument necessary to
preserve these issues for appeal. Cf. Lovin, 652 F.3d at 1357; see also
SmithKline, 439 F.3d at 1320. Indeed, Appellants’ perfunctory arguments
make it difficult to determine which specific findings and conclusions
Appellants believe lack support, rely on speculation, or exhibit hindsight
bias. Nevertheless, after reviewing the Examiner’s obviousness rejection,
we conclude the Examiner properly supported the rejection. The Examiner
articulates how and why one of skill in the art would modify Diard in view
of Kuo to arrive at the claimed invention. (See Ans. at 5-6, 17-18.) And
contrary to Appellants’ assertion, the Examiner does not rely on speculation
or hindsight to support the rejection. Rather, the Examiner points to specific
portions of Diard and the knowledge of those of skill in the art that suggests
the proposed modifications. (See id.)

Appeal 2011-013038
Application 11/513,357

8
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-4, 8-14, 17, 18,
and 21-28. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection
with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv) (2011).

AFFIRMED

bab