Ex Parte Caspole et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardMay 17, 201712849724 (P.T.A.B. May. 17, 2017) Copy Citation 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. 12/849,724 08/03/2010 Eric R. Caspole 5800-37500 8398 53806 7590 05/19/2017 MEYERTONS, HOOD, KIVLIN, KOWERT & GOETZEL (AMD) P.O. BOX 398 AUSTIN, TX 78767-0398 EXAMINER BIRKHIMER, CHRISTOPHER D ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2136 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 05/19/2017 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): patent_docketing@intprop.com ptomhkkg @ gmail .com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte ERIC R. CASPOLE and LAURENT MORICHETTI Appeal 2016-008727 Application 12/849,7241 Technology Center 2100 Before JEAN R. HOMERE, KEVIN C. TROCK, and MICHAEL M. BARRY, Administrative Patent Judges. HOMERE, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the Examiner’s Final rejection of claims 1, 2, 4—10, 12, 14—18, and 22—25, which constitute all of the claims pending in this appeal. Claims 3, 11, 13, and 19-21 have been canceled. Claims App’x. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. 1 Appellants identify the real party in interest as Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. App. Br. 2. Appeal 2016-008727 Application 12/849,724 Appellants ’ Invention Appellants’ invention is directed to a method and system for distributing between a computer processing unit (CPU-100A) and a graphic processing unit (GPU 100 B) initialization of a memory region (64) within a computer system (10). Fig. 1, Spec. 1 5. In particular, upon receiving an indication that an object is to be instantiated, a virtual machine running on a first processing element (e.g., CPU 100A) begins the initialization of a memory region large enough to instantiate the object, and subsequently transmits initialization instructions to a second computing element (e.g., GPU), which writes into the memory region (64) to complete the initialization. Id. ]Hf 30—32. Illustrative Claim Independent claim 1 is illustrative, and reads as follows: 1. A non-transitory computer readable medium having program instructions stored thereon that are executable by at least a first type of processing element of a computing device to perform operations including: responsive to an indication that a new object is to be instantiated by a virtual machine running on the first type of processing element of the computing device, determining a size of a memory region of the computing device to be initialized; the indication being received at the virtual machine running on the first type of processing element, and responsive to the indication, the virtual machine causing initialization of the memory region to be handled by a second type of processing element of the computing device rather than being handled by the virtual machine using the first type of processing element; 2 Appeal 2016-008727 Application 12/849,724 wherein causing the initialization to be handled by the second type of processing element includes the second type of processing element writing to the memory region in conjunction with a memory controller responsive to instructions received from the virtual machine running on the first type of processing element that are based on the indication that the new object is to be instantiated by the virtual machine, and includes the second type of processing element initializing data at least the size of the memory region; wherein the second type of processing element is different than the first type of processing element, and wherein the memory controller is separate from the first and second types of processing element. Webopedia, "Virtual Machine", May 24, 2002, p.l, https://web.arch ive.org/web/20021212145032/http://www.webopedia.com/TERM/V /virtual_machine.Html (“Webopedial”). Webopedia, "DMA", Sept. 1, 1996, pp. 1—2, https ://web.arch ive.org/web/2002081 6042144/http://www.webopedia.com/TERM/D/DMA.html (“Webopedia4”). Prior Art Relied Upon Cook Dewey Fultheim et al. Stubbs et al. Sinclair Haridas et al. Michalak et al. Tene et al. US 2003/0135533 Al July 17, 2003 US 2004/0236933 Al Nov. 25, 2004 US 2005/0039180 Al Feb. 17, 2005 US 7,152,143 B2 Dec. 19, 2006 US 7,409,489 B2 Aug. 5, 2008 US 7,464,243 B2 Dec. 9, 2008 US 2009/0089515 Al Apr. 2, 2009 US 7,552,302 B1 June 23, 2009 3 Appeal 2016-008727 Application 12/849,724 Webopedia, "API", June 21, 2000, pp. 1—2, http://web.archive.org/web/20000621114956/http://www.webopedia.c om/TERM/A/API.html (“Webopedia3”). Webopedia, "Library", Apr. 11, 2001, pp. 1—2, http://web.archive.Org/web/20010411031558/http://www.webopedia.c om/TERM/l/library.html (“Webopedia2”). TechTerms, "DMA (Direct Memory Access)", Oct. 12, 2007, pp. 1—2, http://web.archive.Org/web/20071012025553/http://www.techterms.co ml definition/ dma. Jim Handy, "The Cache Memory Book: The Authoritative Reference On Cache Design", Second Edition, 1998, pp. 8—14, 46-47, 156—86, and 204. Rejections on Appeal Claim 24 stands rejected under 35U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point and distinctly claim the subject matter, which Appellants regard as the invention. Final Act. 2—3. Claims 1, 2, 4, 7, 9, and 24 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Michalak, Dewey, and Webopedial. Final Act. 3—9. Claim 5 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Michalak, Dewey, Webopedial, and Sinclair. Final Act. 10—11. 4 Appeal 2016-008727 Application 12/849,724 Claim 6 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Michalak, Dewey, Sinclair, and Webopedial, Webopedia2, and Webopedia3. Final Act. 11—12. Claim 8 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Michalak, Dewey, Webopedial, and Jim Handy. Final Act. 13—14. Claims 10 and 25 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Michalak, Dewey, Tene, and TechTerms. Final Act. 14—19. Claim 12 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Michalak, Dewey, Tene, TechTerms, and Sinclair. Final Act. 19—20. Claim 14 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Michalak, Dewey, Tene, TechTerms, and Haridas. Final Act. 20—21. Claims 15, 16, and 18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Michalak, Dewey, and Tene. Final Act. 21—27. Claim 17 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Michalak, Dewey, Tene, Jim Handy. Final Act. 27—30. Claim 22 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Michalak, Dewey, Webopedial, and Stubbs. Final Act. 28—30. 5 Appeal 2016-008727 Application 12/849,724 Claim 23 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Michalak, Dewey, Webopedial, and Webopedia4. Final Act. 30—32. ANALYSIS We consider Appellants’ arguments seriatim, as they are presented in the Appeal Brief, pages 7—15, and in the Reply Brief pages 2—7.2 We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellants’ arguments. We are unpersuaded by Appellants’ contentions. Except as indicated otherwise, we adopt as our own the findings and reasons set forth in the rejections from which appeal is taken and in the Examiner’s Answer in response to Appellants’ Appeal Brief. See Ans. 2—5, Final Act. 2—34. However, we highlight and address specific arguments and findings for emphasis as follows. Indefiniteness Rejection Appellants argue that claim 24 is not indefinite because the recitation “wherein an indication being received at the virtual machine comprises the virtual machine generating the indication” is supported by Specification. App. Br. 7 (citing Spec. 144). In particular, Appellants argue that the 2 Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellants and the Examiner, we refer to the Appeal Brief (filed January 27, 2016), the Reply Brief (filed September 22, 2016), and the Answer (mailed July 22, 2016) for their respective details. We have considered in this Decision only those arguments Appellants actually raised in the Briefs. Any other arguments Appellants could have made but chose not to make in the Briefs are deemed to be waived. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv) (2013). 6 Appeal 2016-008727 Application 12/849,724 Specification discloses a first embodiment wherein a control program including an initialization routine is executable to receive a memory request from a user program. Id. Further, Appellants argue that the Specification discloses a second embodiment wherein the control program generates the memory request internally. Id. Consequently, Appellants submit that the Specification supports that an indication received at the virtual machine may be internally generated. Id. These arguments are not persuasive. Our reviewing court has held that the test for definiteness under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, is whether “those skilled in the art would understand what is claimed when the claim is read in light of the specification.” Orthokinetics, Inc. v. Safety Travel Chairs, Inc., 806 F.2d 1565, 1576 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Although Appellants note that the Specification discloses a first embodiment wherein an indication is received at the virtual machine, and a second embodiment wherein the indication is internally generated, Appellants have not shown any portion of the Specification supporting that the two cited embodiments can be used together, as required by the claim. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art, having read the Specification, would not have been apprised of the scope of the claim. We thus find unavailing Appellants’ statement that an indication received at the virtual machine may be generated internally. We agree with the Examiner that it is unclear as to how an indication internally generated by the virtual machine can also be received at the virtual machine. Ans. 3. Consequently, we agree with the Examiner that the claim is ambiguous, confusing, and therefore indefinite. “[CJlaims are required to be cast in clear—as opposed 7 Appeal 2016-008727 Application 12/849,724 to ambiguous, vague, indefinite—terms. It is the claims that notify the public of what is within the protections of the patent, and what is not.” In re Packard, 751 F.3d 1307, 1313 (Fed. Cir. 2014). Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s indefiniteness rejection of claim 24. Obviousness Rejections Appellants argue that the combination of Michalak, Dewey, and Webopedial does not teach or suggest a virtual machine causing a second type of processing element to initialize the memory region by writing thereto, as required by claim 1. App. Br. 8—13, Reply Br. 3—6. In particular, Appellants ague that Dewey does not cure the admitted deficiencies of Michalak because Dewey is not concerned with initializing a memory region. App. Br. 10, Reply Br. 4. According to Appellants, Dewey is instead concerned with initializing a system (e.g. the interface of a GPU) to work with a particular RAM. Id. (citing Dewey 2, 16, 33). Further, Appellants argue that Dewey does not teach or suggest the initialization including writing to the memory region. Id. Appellants submit that although Dewey discloses storing bit input states, the reference does not disclose where and how the data is stored. App. Br. 10 (citing Dewey 133). Furthermore, Appellants argue Dewey’s disclosure of programming the RAM speed, size, and operating voltage does not teach writing into the RAM. Reply Br. 5. Additionally, Appellants argue that Webopedial merely stands for the proposition that virtual machines exist, and therefore fails to teach or suggest the instantiation of new objects by a virtual machine. App. Br. 11—13, Reply Br. 6. These arguments are not persuasive. 8 Appeal 2016-008727 Application 12/849,724 At the outset, we note that Appellants’ Specification describes initialization of a memory region as a processor element writing in the memory region, thereby allowing the processor element to interface with the memory region according to received instructions. Spec, 44-47. As correctly noted by the Examiner, Dewey discloses a GPU interfacing with a RAM, wherein the GPU assesses the speed, the size, and operating voltage of the RAM, pursuant to instructions received from a CPU, to thereby determine the RAM type. Ans. 4 (citing Dewey 133). In particular, Dewey discloses an initialization procedure using a bit pattern, wherein the GPU is initialized to work with the RAM by storing bit input states received from the CPU. Dewey 133. We agree with the Examiner that Dewey’s disclosure of writing the bit pattern in memory as part of the assessment of the RAM type teaches or suggests the GPU writing such pattern in the RAM. One of ordinary skill in the art would have readily appreciated that such initial interaction of the GPU with the RAM teaches the GPU being used to initialize the RAM. We further agree with the Examiner that Webopedial’s disclosure that virtual machine software can be implemented on a computing system would complement the Michalak-Dewey combination such that the virtual machine is implemented on the CPU to instruct the GPU to initialize the RAM. Ans. 4—5. On the record before us, we are satisfied that the proposed combination of references teaches the disputed limitations. Accordingly, Appellants have failed to show error in the obviousness rejection of claim 1. Therefore, we sustain the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of claim 1. 9 Appeal 2016-008727 Application 12/849,724 We also sustain the Examiner’s § 103(a) rejection of independent claims 10 and 15, the patentability of which is argued for similar reasons as independent claim 1. Appeal Br. 13—15. Dependent claims 2, 4—9, 12, 14, 16—18, and 22—25 are not argued separately, or are only nominally argued separately, so the rejection of these claims are sustained for the reasons given for their respective independent claims. See 37 C.F.R. § 1.37(c)(l)(iv). DECISION We affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claim 24 under 35 U.S.C. §112, second paragraph. We also affirm the Examiner’s rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103 (a) of claims 1, 2, ^U10, 12, 1^U18, and 22-25. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l)(iv). AFFIRMED 10 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation