Ex Parte Tirumalai et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Nov 6, 2013

11081984 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 6, 2013)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
________________

Ex parte PARTHA P. TIRUMALAI, YONGHONG SONG, and
SPIROS KALOGEROPULOS
________________

Appeal 2011-006754
Application 11/081,984
Technology Center 2100
________________

Before JOSEPH F. RUGGIERO, JOHNNY A. KUMAR, and
MICHAEL J. STRAUSS, Administrative Patent Judges.

KUMAR, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal 2011-006754
Application 11/081,984

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s final
rejection of claims 1-4, 6-14, and 16-21. Claims 5 and 15 have been
cancelled. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
Invention
Appellants’ invention relates to a system that generates code for a
scout thread to prefetch data values for a main thread. Spec., ¶ [0012]
Independent claim 1 further illustrates the invention as follows:
1. A method for generating code for a scout thread to prefetch
data values for a main thread, comprising:
receiving source code for a program; and
compiling the source code to produce executable code for the
program by:
performing reuse analysis to identify prefetch candidates
which are likely to be touched during execution of the
program;
conditionally replacing loads and stores from the prefetch
candidates with prefetch instructions for the scout thread; and
producing executable code for the scout thread which
contains prefetch instructions to prefetch the identified prefetch
candidates for the main thread, wherein when executed, a
prefetch instruction prefetches a data item from a main
memory to a cache memory for the corresponding replaced
load or store before the data item is used by the main thread as
Appeal 2011-006754
Application 11/081,984

3
the main thread executes the corresponding load or store;
whereby the scout thread can subsequently be executed in
parallel with the main thread and separately from the main thread in
advance of where the main thread is executing.

Rejection
The Examiner rejected claims 1-4, 6-14, and 16-21 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Wu (US 2005/0149915 A1, Jul. 7, 2005)
in view of Tian (US 2005/0086652 A1, Apr. 21, 2005). Ans. 4-21.

ISSUE AND ANALYSIS
Based on Appellants’ arguments in the Appeal Brief (Br. 16-20), the
principal and dispositive issues of whether the Examiner erred in rejecting
exemplary claim 1 turn on whether the combination of Wu and Tian teaches
or suggests “conditionally replacing loads and stores from the prefetch
candidates with prefetch instructions for the scout thread” (hereinafter the
prefetch instructions feature), and “the scout thread can subsequently be
executed in parallel with the main thread,” (hereinafter the parallel execution
feature), as recited in claim 1. Independent claims 11 and 21 recite similar
subject matter and Appellants rely on similar arguments as those presented
in support of claim 1 (Br. 16).
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellants’
arguments that the Examiner has erred. We disagree with Appellants’
conclusions. We adopt as our own (1) the findings and reasons set forth by
the Examiner in the action from which this appeal is taken and (2) the
reasons set forth by the Examiner in the Examiner’s Answer in response to
Appeal 2011-006754
Application 11/081,984

4
Appellants’ Appeal Brief. We concur with the conclusions reached by the
Examiner. We highlight and address specific findings and arguments for
emphasis as follows.
In rejecting independent claim 1 over the combination of Wu and
Tian, the Examiner finds that Wu discloses the disputed prefetch instructions
feature as explained on pages 22-27 of the Answer in response to
Appellants’ arguments that the Examiner erred. In particular, as shown in
Wu’s annotated Fig. 20 (Ans. 23), the Examiner finds that Wu's Use
Translation Module meets the prefetch instructions feature because Wu
discloses “conditionally (1202 analyze profile information to identify load
types) replacing loads and stores from the prefetch candidates with prefetch
instructions (1204 Eliminate redundant prefetching loads, 1206 insert
prefetching instructions for the selected loads).” Id. at 24. We agree with
the Examiner.
As to the disputed parallel execution feature, Appellants’ arguments
(Br. 19-20) are not persuasive as our interpretation of the disclosure of Wu
coincides with that of the Examiner. In particular, we agree with the
Examiner that Wu explicitly teaches parallel processing (Wu ¶[0095]. Ans.
28-29.)
We observe that no Reply Brief is of record to rebut such findings
including the Examiner’s responses to Appellants’ arguments. Therefore, in
the absence of sufficient rebuttal evidence or argument to persuade us
otherwise, we adopt the Examiner’s findings and underlying reasoning (Ans.
21-29), which are incorporated herein by reference. Consequently, we find
no error in the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1 (11 and 21) and dependent
Appeal 2011-006754
Application 11/081,984

5
claims 2-4, 6-10, 12-14, and 16-20, not separately argued, fall with claims 1
and 11, respectively. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii).

CONCLUSION
The Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 1-4, 6-14, and 16-21
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Wu and Tian.

DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1-4, 6-14, and 16-
21.
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).

AFFIRMED

tj