International Business Machines Corporation

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jan 6, 2022

2021000091 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 6, 2022)

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. 15/044,285 02/16/2016 ALEXANDER E. MERICAS ROC920150345US2 9940 34533 7590 01/06/2022 IBM (AUS-KLS) c/o Kennedy Lenart Spraggins LLP 797 Sam Bass Road #2559 ROUND ROCK, TX 78681 EXAMINER KABIR, MOHAMMAD H ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2199 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 01/06/2022 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): eofficeaction@appcoll.com kate@klspatents.com office@klspatents.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ________________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ________________ Ex parte ALEXANDER E. MERICAS, MARIA L. PESANTEZ, and MYSORE S. SRINIVAS ________________ Appeal 2021-000091 Application 15/044,285 Technology Center 2100 ________________ Before JAMES R. HUGHES, JOHNNY A. KUMAR, and JASON J. CHUNG, Administrative Patent Judges. CHUNG, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals the Final Rejection of claims 1-7.2 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM. INVENTION The invention relates to instruction weighting for performance profiling in a group dispatch processor. Spec. ¶ 2. Claim 1 is illustrative of the invention and is reproduced below: 1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42. According to Appellant, International Business Machines Corporation is the real party in interest. Appeal Br. 2. 2 Claims 8-20 are cancelled. Appeal Br. 19. Appeal 2021-000091 Application 15/044,285 2 1. A method of instruction weighting for performance profiling in a group dispatch processor that dispatches and completes instructions according to dispatch groups, the method comprising: retrieving, by a post processing profiler, an execution sample of completed instructions, wherein the execution sample includes: an instruction address of a youngest instruction in a dispatch group that has completed execution in a group dispatch processor, wherein the dispatch group is a group of instructions that are tagged by the group dispatch processor, dispatched by the group dispatch processor, and completed according to the dispatch group; a number of instructions in the dispatch group; and a number of times that the instruction address of the youngest instruction in the dispatch group address is captured; based on the instruction address of the youngest instruction and the number of instructions in the dispatch group, identifying, by the post processing profiler, all of the instructions that are in the dispatch group at a time that the dispatch group completed execution; and weighting, by the post processing profiler, all of the identified instructions in the dispatch group by applying within an execution profile the result of the execution sample to all of the identified instructions that are in the dispatch group and that were completed according to the dispatch group by calculating a percentage of the result of the execution sample to be attributed to each of the instructions in the dispatch group and assigning to each of the identified instructions that are in the dispatch group the percentage. Appeal Br. 18-19 (Claims Appendix). Appeal 2021-000091 Application 15/044,285 3 REJECTIONS3 The Examiner rejects claims 1 and 2 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of DeSylva (US 2005/0071613 A1; published Mar. 31, 2005), Blumenthal (US 7,546,598 B2; issued June 9, 2009), Anderson (US 6,092,180; issued July 18, 2000), and Henzinger (US 5,857,097; issued Jan. 5, 1999). Final Act. 15-23. The Examiner rejects claim 3 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of DeSylva, Blumenthal, Anderson, Henzinger, and DeWitt (US 2005/0154812 A1; published July 14, 2005). Final Act. 24-25. The Examiner rejects claim 4 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of DeSylva, Blumenthal, Anderson, Henzinger, DeWitt, and Kosche (US 2008/0177756 A1; published July 24, 2008). Final Act. 25-26. The Examiner rejects claims 5 and 6 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of DeSylva, Blumenthal, Anderson, Henzinger, and Doing (US 8,479,184 B2; issued July 2, 2013). Final Act. 26-28. The Examiner rejects claim 7 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of DeSylva, Blumenthal, Anderson, Henzinger, and Koh (US 8,156,481 B1; issued Apr. 10, 2012). Final Act. 29. 3 The rejections under 35 U.S.C. §§ 112(a) and 112(b) have been withdrawn. Ans. 3. Appeal 2021-000091 Application 15/044,285 4 ANALYSIS The Examiner finds DeSylva teaches feeding instructions into execution units and sampling the instructions in an instruction sampling pool, which the Examiner maps to the limitation “an execution sample of completed instructions, wherein the execution sample includes . . . a number of instructions in the dispatch group” recited in claim 1. Ans. 4-5 (citing DeSylva ¶¶ 24, 29, Fig. 1); Final Act. 17 (citing DeSylva ¶ 29). Moreover, the Examiner concludes that “the number of instructions in the dispatch group of the youngest instruction whose address was captured” is not recited in the claims nor can claim 1 be interpreted this way. Ans. 5-6 (citing Appeal Br. 10-11). The Examiner finds Blumenthal teaches calculating a weight such that “n” is the total number of instructions in the instruction profile, which the Examiner maps to the limitation “weighting, by the post processing profiler, all of the identified instructions in the dispatch group by applying within an execution profile the result of the execution sample to all of the identified instructions that are in the dispatch group” recited in claim 1. Ans. 6-7 (citing Blumenthal, 3:1-11, 7:18-29); Final Act. 19-20 (citing Blumenthal, 3:1-11, 7:18-24). The Examiner finds Anderson teaches “calculating a percentage of the result of the execution sample to be attributed to each of the instructions in the dispatch group and assigning to each of the identified instructions that are in the dispatch group the percentage” recited in claim 1. Ans. 7-8 (citing Anderson, 18:50-63, 22:39-48, 27:32-35, Figs. 5, 9, Abstract); Final Act. 20-21 (citing Anderson, 22:39-48, 27:32-35). Appellant argues that DeSylva merely teaches an interrupt trap, but fails to teach “the number of instructions in the dispatch group of the Appeal 2021-000091 Application 15/044,285 5 youngest instruction whose address was captured.” Appeal Br. 10-11 (citing DeSylva ¶ 29). In addition, Appellant argues Blumenthal merely teaches a weighted total execution time, rather than weighting all of the identified instructions in the dispatch group by applying the result of the execution sample to all of the identified instructions in the dispatch group. Appeal Br. 12-13 (citing Blumenthal, 3:1-11, 7:18-24). Appellant argues Anderson merely teaches a percentage of wasted issue slots but fails to teach the limitation “calculating a percentage of the result of the execution sample to be attributed to the instructions in the dispatch group and assigning to each of the identified instructions that are in the dispatch group an equal portion of the percentage” recited in claim 1. Appeal Br. 13-15 (citing Anderson, 21:10-15, 21:34-51, 22:39-48). We disagree with Appellant. As an initial matter, the Examiner makes new findings in the Answer. Compare Ans. 4-5 (citing DeSylva ¶¶ 24, 29, Fig. 1), with Final Act. 17 (citing DeSylva ¶ 29). Although Appellant is not required to file a Reply Brief, Appellant does not rebut sufficiently the Examiner’s findings pertaining to new findings of DeSylva. Nonetheless, DeSylva teaches feeding instructions into execution units and sampling the instructions (i.e., an execution sample of completed instructions) in an instruction sampling pool (i.e., dispatch group), teaches the limitation “an execution sample of completed instructions, wherein the execution sample includes . . . a number of instructions in the dispatch group” recited in claim 1. Ans. 4-5 (citing DeSylva ¶¶ 24, 29, Fig. 1); Final Act. 17 (citing DeSylva ¶ 29); see also DeSylva ¶¶ 18-21 (Paragraphs 18 to 21 of DeSylva pertain to Figure 2, which paragraph 29 of DeSylva does too. Paragraphs 18 to 21 discuss the use of dispatch-execute unit 275, which Appeal 2021-000091 Application 15/044,285 6 teaches or suggests a dispatch group.). Furthermore, “[A]ppellant’s arguments fail from the outset because . . . they are not based on limitations appearing in the claims.” See In re Self, 671 F.2d 1344, 1348 (CCPA 1982). We, therefore, agree with the Examiner’s conclusion that “the number of instructions in the dispatch group of the youngest instruction whose address was captured” is not recited in the claims nor can claim 1 be interpreted this way. Ans. 5-6 (citing Appeal Br. 10-11). We disagree with Appellant’s argument pertaining to Blumenthal. Appeal Br. 12-13 (citing Blumenthal, 3:1-11, 7:18-24). The Examiner makes new findings in the Answer. Compare Ans. 6-7 (citing Blumenthal, 3:1-11, 7:18-29) (relying on Blumenthal’s equation 1), with Final Act. 19- 20 (citing Blumenthal, 3:1-11, 7:18-24). Although Appellant is not required to file a Reply Brief, Appellant does not rebut sufficiently the Examiner’s findings pertaining to new findings of Blumenthal. Nevertheless, Blumenthal teaches calculating a weight (i.e., weighting) such that “n” is the total number of instructions (i.e., all of the identified instructions in the dispatch group) in the instruction profile (i.e., by applying within an execution profile the result of the execution sample) using new runtimes measured as a result of changes to a virtual machine (i.e., the result of the execution sample), which teaches the limitation “weighting, by the post processing profiler, all of the identified instructions in the dispatch group by applying within an execution profile the result of the execution sample to all of the identified instructions that are in the dispatch group” recited in claim 1. Ans. 6-7 (citing Blumenthal, 3:1-11, 7:18-29); Final Act. 19-20 (citing Blumenthal, 3:1-11, 7:18-24). Appeal 2021-000091 Application 15/044,285 7 We disagree with Appellant’s argument pertaining to Anderson. Appeal Br. 13-15 (citing Anderson, 21:10-15, 21:34-51, 22:39-48). The Examiner makes new findings in the Answer. Compare Ans. 7-8 (citing Anderson, 18:50-63, 22:39-48, 27:32-35, Figs. 5, 9, Abstract), with Final Act. 20-21 (citing Anderson, 22:39-48, 27:32-35). Although Appellant is not required to file a Reply Brief, Appellant does not rebut sufficiently the Examiner’s findings pertaining to new findings of Anderson. Appellant does not argue claims 2-7 separately with particularity. Appeal Br. 10-17. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of: (1) independent claims 1; and (2) dependent claims 2-7 under 35 U.S.C. § 103. We have only considered those arguments that Appellant actually raised in the Briefs. Arguments Appellant could have made, but chose not to make, in the Briefs have not been considered and are deemed to be waived. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv). Appeal 2021-000091 Application 15/044,285 8 CONCLUSION 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). See 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv). AFFIRMED Claim(s) Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 1, 2 103 DeSylva, Blumenthal, Anderson, Henzinger 1, 2 3 103 DeSylva, Blumenthal, Anderson, Henzinger, DeWitt 3 4 103 DeSylva, Blumenthal, Anderson, Henzinger, DeWitt, Kosche 4 5, 6 103 DeSylva, Blumenthal, Anderson, Henzinger, Doing 5, 6 7 103 DeSylva, Blumenthal, Anderson, Henzinger, Koh 7 Overall Outcome 1-7