Ex Parte Swanberg

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 29, 2018

13781254 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 29, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
131781,254 02/28/2013
45992 7590 03/30/2018
IBM CORPORATION (JVM)
C/O LAW OFFICE OF JACK V. MUSGROVE
2911 BRIONA WOOD LANE
CEDAR PARK, TX 78613
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Randal C. Swanberg
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.
AUS920120165US2 4730
EXAMINER
NGUYEN, WILLIAM V
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2183
MAILDATE DELIVERY MODE
03/30/2018 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 RANDAL C. SWANBERG
Appeal2017-009468
Application 13/781,254
Technology Center 2100
Before ERIC B. CHEN, MONICA S. ULLAGADDI, and SCOTT E. BAIN,
Administrative Patent Judges.
CHEN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant seeks our review, under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), of the
Examiner's final rejection of claims 1---6, 27, and 28. Claims 7-25 have
been cancelled. Claim 26 has been indicated to be allowable if rewritten in
independent form. (Final Act. 10-11.) We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.
Appeal2017-009468
Application 13/781,254
RELATED CASE
This application is related to co-pending Application No. 13/666,328,
which is appealed under Appeal No. 2017-009464. (App. Br. 2.)
INVENTION
The present invention relates to an "[i]ntelligent context management
for thread switching ... achieved by determining that a register bank has not
been used by a thread for a predetermined number of dispatches, and
responsively disabling the register bank for use by that thread." (Spec.,
Abstract.)
The independent claims on appeal are claims 1 and 27. Claim 1 is
illustrative and reproduced below with emphasis and paragraphing added.
1. A method of intelligent context management for
thread switching in a processing unit having execution units and
register banks used by the execution units, the method
compnsmg:
determining that a given register bank has not been used
by a particular thread for a predetermined number of dispatches
of the particular thread; and
responsive to said determining, disabling the given
register bank for use by the particular thread while still enabling
the given register bank for at least one other thread, wherein
disabling of said given register bank includes not restoring a
context of said given register bank for a dispatch of the particular
thread and includes not saving the context of said given register
bank when the particular thread is switched out of the processor
core.
2
Appeal2017-009468
Application 13/781,254
REJECTIONS
Claims 1, 2, and 4 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Keller (US 2005/0138442 Al; June 23, 2005), Terechko
(US 2006/0168463 Al; July 27, 2006), and Dixon (US 2007/0101076 Al;
May 3, 2007). (Final Act. 2-5.)
Claim 3 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over
Keller, Terechko, Dixon, and d'Abreu (US 2010/0332949 Al; Dec. 30,
2010). (Final Act. 5---6.)
Claim 5 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over
Keller, Terechko, Dixon, and David (US 2003/0105932 Al; June 5, 2003).
(Final Act. 6.)
Claim 6 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over
Keller, Terechko, Dixon, Hickerson (US 2010/0011345 Al; Jan. 14, 2010),
and Gschwind (US 2009/0198966 Al; Aug. 6, 2009). (Final Act. 7.)
Claim 27 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over
Keller, Terechko and Mongkolsmai (US 2006/0150162 Al; July 6, 2006).
(Final Act. 8-9.)
Claim 28 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over
Keller, Terechko, Mongkolsmai, and Brooks (US 7,478,225 Bl; Jan. 13,
2009). (Final Act. 9-10.)
ANALYSIS
§ 103 Rejection-Keller, Terechko, and Dixon
We are persuaded by Appellant's arguments (App. Br. 9; see also
Reply Br. 4--5) that the combination of Keller, Terechko, and Dixon would
not have rendered obvious independent claim 1, which includes the
3
Appeal2017-009468
Application 13/781,254
limitation "determining that a given register bank has not been used by a
particular thread for a predetermined number of dispatches of the particular
thread."
The Examiner found that the usage evaluators of Keller, which
determine a total use of the associated device, corresponds to the limitation
"determining that a given register bank of the processor has not been used by
a particular thread for a predetermined number of dispatches of the particular
thread." (Final Act. 2-3; see Ans. 7-8.) In particular, the Examiner found
that "Keller teaches counters to determine per-thread usage of associated
devices [dispatches of the particular thread] for power management ... and
threshold values [predetermined number] as an indicator of memory use
such as access frequency [register bank use]." (Final Act. 3 (bracketing in
original).) Moreover, the Examiner found that:
While inter-arrival time is one indicator used by Keller ... , it is
not the only indicator. The term frequency can be defined as the
rate at which something occurs. . . . [T]he system would function
by counting the frequency of access [number of dispatches] to be
compared to a threshold value [predetermined number].
(Ans. 7-8 (bracketing in original).) We do not agree with the Examiner's
findings.
Keller relates to "energy management in a simultaneous
multi-threaded (SMT) processing system including per-thread device usage
monitoring provides control of energy usage that accommodates thread
parallelism." (Abstract.) Keller explains that "the usage evaluators ... are
used to determine a total use of the associated device by all threads
executing within an execution slice, as the power management logic is not
thread-selective." (i-f 29.) Keller further explains that "[t]he per-thread
4
Appeal2017-009468
Application 13/781,254
usage information is used to adjust the thresholds in memory controller and
[to] set the initial power management states of the devices" (id.), such that
"threshold values may be a single fixed threshold, in which the current inter-
arrival time (or other significant indicator of memory use such as access
frequency) of memory accesses for a given process and module is compared
to a level programmed by the operating system" (i-f 34 ).
Although the Examiner cited to the usage evaluators of Keller, which
applies a thread usage threshold to determine power management, the
Examiner has not identified evidence sufficient to support the finding that
Keller teaches the limitation "determining that a given register bank of the
processor has not been used by a particular thread for a predetermined
number of dispatches of the particular thread." In particular, Keller explains
usage evaluators determine total use of the associated device by all threads,
which is based upon the threshold of "inter-arrival time" or "access
frequency," both of which are time-dependent. Keller, however, is silent
with respect to the limitation "determining that a given register bank of the
processor has not been used by a particular thread for a predetermined
number of dispatches of the particular thread."
Thus, on this record, the Examiner has not demonstrated that Keller
teaches the limitation "determining that a given register bank has not been
used by a particular thread for a predetermined number of dispatches of the
particular thread." Furthermore, the Examiner's application of Terechko and
Dixon do not cure the above-noted deficiencies with respect to Keller.
Accordingly, we are persuaded by Appellant's arguments that "Keller
[paragraph] 34 makes it clear that the threshold is based on usage over time
('inter-arrival time' or 'access frequency')" and "[t]he specific wording of
5
Appeal2017-009468
Application 13/781,254
Keller and the examples given for the basis of disabling a memory bank are
unambiguously limited to time-based usage of the device, and such usage is
totally unrelated to a flat number of dispatches regardless of time." (App.
Br. 9; see also Reply Br. 4--5.)
Thus, we do not sustain the rejection of independent claim 1 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a). Claims 2 and 4 depend from independent claim 1. We
do not sustain the rejection of claims 2 and 4 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 for the
same reasons discussed with respect to independent claim 1.
§ 103 Rejection-Keller, Terechko, Dixon, and d 'Abreu
Claim 3 depends from independent claim 1. D 'Abreu was cited by
the Examiner for teaching the additional features of claim 3. (Final Act. 5-
6.) However, the Examiner's application of d' Abreu does not cure the
above noted deficiencies of Keller, Terechko, and Dixon.
§ 103 Rejection-Keller, Terechko, Dixon, and David
Claim 5 depends from independent claim 1. David was cited by the
Examiner for teaching the additional features of claim 5. (Final Act. 6.)
However, the Examiner's application of David does not cure the above
noted deficiencies of Keller, Terechko, and Dixon.
§ 103 Rejection-Keller, Terechko, Dixon, Hickerson, and Gschwind
Claim 6 depends from independent claim 1. Hickerson and Gschwind
were cited by the Examiner for teaching the additional features of claim 6.
(Final Act. 7.) However, the Examiner's application of Hickerson and
6
Appeal2017-009468
Application 13/781,254
Gschwind does not cure the above noted deficiencies of Keller, Terechko,
and Dixon.
§ 103 Rejection-Keller, Terechko and Mongkolsmai
Independent claim 2 7 recites limitations similar to those discussed
with respect to independent claim 1. Mongkolsmai was cited by the
Examiner for teaching the additional features of claim 27. (Final Act. 8-9.)
However, the Examiner's application of Mongkolsmai does not cure the
above noted deficiencies of Keller and Terechko.
§ 103 Rejection-Keller, Terechko, Mongkolsmai, and Brooks
Claim 28 depends from independent claim 27. Brooks was cited by
the Examiner for teaching the additional features of claim 29. (Final Act. 9-
10.) However, the Examiner's application of Brooks does not cure the
above noted deficiencies of Keller, Terechko, and Mongkolsmai.
DECISION
We reverse the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-6, 27, and 28.
REVERSED
7