International Business Machines Corporation

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Feb 18, 2022

2020006587 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 18, 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. 15/487,048 04/13/2017 BARTHOLOMEW BLANER ROC920170002US1 8931 34533 7590 02/18/2022 IBM (AUS-KLS) c/o Kennedy Lenart Spraggins LLP 797 Sam Bass Road #2559 ROUND ROCK, TX 78681 EXAMINER PAPERNO, NICHOLAS A ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2132 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 02/18/2022 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 BARTHOLOMEW BLANER, JODY B. JOYNER, RONALD N. KALLA, JON K. KRIEGEL, and CHARLES D. WAIT ____________ Appeal 2020-006587 Application 15/487,048 Technology Center 2100 ____________ Before ST. JOHN COURTENAY III, JOHNNY A. KUMAR, and CATHERINE SHIANG, Administrative Patent Judges. SHIANG, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s rejection of claims 8, 9, 12-16, and 19-24, which are all the claims pending and rejected in the application. Appeal Br. 11-17 (Claims Appendix). Claims 1-7, 10, 11, 17, and 18 have been cancelled. Id. at 11-12, 15. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. 1 We use “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies International Business Machines Corporation (“IBM”), as the real party in interest. Appeal Br. 2. Appeal 2020-006587 Application 15/487,048 2 RELATED PTAB APPEAL This Appeal is related to Appeal No. 2020-006785 (Application No. 15/818,050) (PTAB decision was mailed on January 6, 2022). STATEMENT OF THE CASE Introduction The invention relates to “maintaining agent inclusivity within a distributed memory management unit (MMU).” Spec. ¶ 1. In particular, [m]aintaining agent inclusivity within a distributed memory management unit (MMU) including receiving, from an agent, a translation checkout request comprising an effective address (EA) and an effective address to real address table (ERAT) index; translating the EA to a real address (RA) using an entry in a translation lookaside buffer (TLB) within the MMU, wherein the TLB within the MMU comprises an RA for each EA in the ERAT within the agent; flagging the entry in the TLB as in use by the agent, wherein the entry in the TLB comprises a TLB index; storing the EA index and the TLB index in an in- use scoreboard (IUSB), wherein the IUSB maps TLB indexes identifying entries in the TLB within the MMU to ERAT indexes identifying entries in the ERAT within the agent; and sending, to the agent, a translation checkout response comprising the RA. Abstr. Independent claim 8 is exemplary: 8. A computer processor for maintaining agent inclusivity within a distributed memory management unit (MMU), the computer processor comprising: a plurality of agents separate from the MMU, each of the plurality of agents comprising an effective address to real address table (ERAT) of a plurality of ERATs; and Appeal 2020-006587 Application 15/487,048 3 wherein the computer processor is configured for: receiving, by the MMU and from an agent of the plurality of agents, a translation checkout request comprising an effective address (EA) and an effective address to real address table (ERAT) index, wherein the ERAT index identifies a placement of an entry in an ordering of entries in the ERAT within the agent; translating the EA to a real address (RA) using an entry in a translation lookaside buffer (TLB) within the MMU, wherein the TLB within the MMU comprises an RA for each EA in the ERAT within the agent, and wherein each TLB entry includes a set of agent flags, and wherein each respective agent flag of the set of agent flags corresponds to a respective agent of the plurality of agents; flagging the entry in the TLB as in use by the agent, wherein the entry in the TLB comprises a TLB index, and wherein the TLB index identifies the entry in the TLB; storing the ERAT index and the TLB index in an in-use scoreboard (IUSB), wherein the IUSB is within the MMU, wherein the IUSB is separate from the TLB, and wherein the IUSB maps TLB indexes identifying entries in the TLB within the MMU to ERAT indexes identifying entries in the ERA T within the agent; and sending, to the agent, a translation checkout response comprising the RA. Appeal 2020-006587 Application 15/487,048 4 References and Rejections2 Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § References/Basis 8-9, 12-16, 19-243 N/A Provisional Double Patenting in light of claims 1-7 of co-pending Application No. 15/818,050 8-9, 12, 15- 16, 19 103 Man et al. “Distributed Memory Management Units Architecture for NoC-based CMPs.” 2010 10th IEEE International Conference on Computer and Information Technology (CIT 2010). IEEE, 2010 (“Man”), Kikuta (US 6,370,632 B1; issued Apr. 9, 2002), Rozario (US 2016/0342523 A1; published Nov. 24, 2016), Shen (US 2015/0100753 A1; published Apr. 9, 2015) 21-244 103 Man, Kikuta, Rozario, Shen, Gaertner (US 2011/0321048 A1; published Dec. 29, 2011) 13, 20 103 Man, Kikuta, Rozario, Shen, Pan (US 2007/0106874 A1; published May 10, 2007) 14 103 Man, Kikuta, Rozario, Shen, Martin (US 9,176,888 B2; issued Nov. 3, 2015) 2 Throughout this opinion, we refer to the (1) Final Office Action dated Oct. 17, 2019 (“Final Act.”); (2) Appeal Brief dated Feb. 17, 2020 (“Appeal Br.”); (3) Examiner’s Answer dated Apr. 1, 2020 (“Ans.”). 3 While the heading of the rejection includes incorrect claim listings (Final Act. 3), the Examiner’s substantive rejection includes the correct claim listings (Final Act. 3-10). See Response after Final Action dated December 5, 2019, p. 2 (acknowledging the double patenting rejection is for claims 8, 9, 12-16, and 19-24); Advisory Action dated December 19, 2019, p. 2 (same). 4 While the heading of the rejection incorrectly includes additional claims (Final Act. 16), the Examiner’s substantive rejection correctly excludes such claims (Final Act. 16-19). Appeal 2020-006587 Application 15/487,048 5 ANALYSIS Double Patenting Appellant does not contest the double patenting rejection. Thus, we pro forma sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 8, 9, 12-16, and 19-24 on the ground of provisional non-statutory double patenting in light of claims 1-7 of co-pending Application No. 15/818,050. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv) (“any arguments . . . not included in the appeal brief will be refused consideration by the Board for purposes of the present appeal”); In re Google Tech. Holdings LLC, 980 F.3d 858, 863 (Fed. Cir. 2020) (“We interpret the Patent Office to be arguing that Google’s failure to raise its lexicography arguments, inadvertent or not, compels a finding of forfeiture. We agree.”). Obviousness We have reviewed and considered Appellant’s arguments, but such arguments are unpersuasive. To the extent consistent with our analysis below, we adopt the Examiner’s findings and conclusions in (i) the action from which this appeal is taken and (ii) the Answer. Further, to the extent Appellant advances new arguments in the Reply Brief without showing good cause, Appellant has waived such arguments. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.41(b)(2). On this record, Appellant has not persuaded us the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 8. Appellant contends Shen does not teach “storing the ERAT [effective address to real address table] index and the TLB [translation lookaside buffer] index in an in-use scoreboard (IUSB), . . . wherein the IUSB is Appeal 2020-006587 Application 15/487,048 6 separate from the TLB,” as recited in claim 8. See Appeal Br. 6-8. In particular, Appellant contends the Office Action . . . relies on Shen at paragraph [0019] for teaching “wherein the IUSB is separate from the TLB.” Applicants submit that Shen’s described “hit vector” does not teach or suggest the claimed in-use scoreboard (IUSB), and therefore Shen does not teach or suggest “wherein the IUSB is separate from the TLB,” as claimed . . . . In the cited portions, Shen describes storing TLB indexes in a “hit vector” to indicate which TLB entries have the received physical address. In short, Shen’s “hit vector” stores TLB indexes in order to map the TLB indexes (and the corresponding TLB entries) to the received physical address. Applicants note that Shen’s described “hit vector” stores TLB indexes. However, there is no mention in the cited sections of Shen that Shen’s “hit vector” stores both TLB indexes and ERAT (effective address to real address table) indexes, as recited in claim[] 8 . . . . Appeal Br. 6-7; see also Appeal Br. 7-8. Appellant’s arguments are not directed to the Examiner’s specific findings. Further, because the Examiner relies on the combination of Man, Kikuta, Rozario, and Shen to teach the disputed claim limitations, Appellant cannot establish nonobviousness by attacking Shen individually. See In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986). The Examiner finds-and Appellant does not dispute-that Man, Kikuta, and Rozario collectively teach or suggest “storing the ERAT index and the TLB index in an in-use scoreboard (IUSB).” See Final Act. 12-14 (citing Kikuta 11:16-60; Rozario, Fig. 5; ¶¶ 51, 53-55). As a result, Man, Appeal 2020-006587 Application 15/487,048 7 Kikuta, and Rozario also collectively teach the claim elements “IUSB” and “TLB.” The Examiner further finds-and Appellant does not dispute-that Shen teaches the claimed “is separate from,” because Shen describes a hit vector that is separate from TLB entries. See Final Act. 14-15 (citing Shen ¶ 19). Because Appellant does not dispute the Examiner’s rationale for combining the teachings of Man, Kikuta, Rozario, and Shen, Appellant has not shown that the Examiner has erred in determining Man, Kikuta, Rozario, and Shen collectively teach “storing the ERAT index and the TLB index in an in-use scoreboard (IUSB), . . . wherein the IUSB is separate from the TLB,” as recited in claim 8. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of independent claim 8, and independent claim 15 for similar reasons. We also sustain the Examiner’s rejection of corresponding dependent claims 9, 12-14, 16, and 19-24, as Appellant does not advance separate substantive arguments about those claims. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv). CONCLUSION We pro forma affirm the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 8, 9, 12-16, and 19-24 on the ground of provisional non-statutory double patenting. We affirm the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 8, 9, 12-16, and 19-24 under 35 U.S.C. § 103. Appeal 2020-006587 Application 15/487,048 8 DECISION SUMMARY In summary: Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 8-9, 12-16, 19-24 Provisional Nonstatutory Double Patenting 8-9, 12-16, 19-24 8-9, 12, 15- 16, 19 103 Man, Kikuta, Rozario, Shen 8-9, 12, 15- 16, 19 21-24 103 Man, Kikuta, Rozario, Shen, Gaertner 21-24 13, 20 103 Man, Kikuta, Rozario, Shen, Pan 13, 20 14 103 Man, Kikuta, Rozario, Shen, Martin 14 Overall Outcome 8-9, 12-16, 19-24 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. § 41.50(f). AFFIRMED