Ex Parte Chen et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 28, 2017

13369836 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 28, 2017)

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.
13/369,836 02/09/2012 Doris Tzu-Lang Chen ALT.P301.1 (A03852.1) 9524
45634 7590
LAWRENCE M. CHO
P. O. BOX 2144
CHAMPAIGN, IL 61825
03/29/2017 EXAMINER
SAXENA, AKASH
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2128
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/29/2017 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 DORIS TZU-LANG CHEN
and DESHANAND SINGH
Appeal 2016-008308
Application 13/369,836
Technology Center 2100
Before JASON V. MORGAN, BRUCE R. WINSOR, and
AARON W. MOORE, Administrative Patent Judges.
MOORE, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal 2016-008308
Application 13/369,836
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a Non-Final
Rejection of claims 1—32, which are all of the pending claims. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
THE INVENTION
The application is directed to “[a] method of configuring a
programmable integrated circuit device us[ing] a high-level language.”
(Abstract.) Claim 1, reproduced below, is representative of the subject
matter on appeal:
1. A method of configuring a programmable integrated circuit
device using a high-level programming language, said method
comprising:
compiling a plurality of virtual programmable devices from
descriptions in said high-level programming language;
receiving a description of a user configuration for said pro­
grammable integrated circuit device in said high-level program­
ming language;
parsing said user configuration using a programming proces­
sor, and selecting, as a result of said parsing, one of said com­
piled virtual programmable devices; instantiating said one of said
compiled virtual programmable devices on said programmable
integrated circuit device; and
configuring said instantiated one of said compiled virtual pro­
grammable devices with said user configuration.
1 Appellants identify Intel Corporation as the real party in interest. (See
App. Br. 3.)
2
Appeal 2016-008308
Application 13/369,836
THE REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
James Coole and Gregg Stitt, Intermediate Fabrics: Virtual
Architectures for Circuit Portability and Fast Placement and Routing,
CODES+ISSS ’10, Proceedings of the Eighth IEEE/ACM/IFIP
International Conference on Hardware/Software Codesign and System
Synthesis, pp. 13-22 (Oct. 2010) (“Coale”)
Muhsen Owaida et al., Synthesis of Platform Architectures from
OpenCL Programs, 2011 IEEE 19th Annual International Symposium
on Field-Programmable Custom Computing Machines (FCCM), pp.
186-193 (May 2011) (“Owaida”)
Greg Stitt and James Coole, Intermediate Fabrics: Virtual
Architectures for Near-Instant FPGA Compilation, IEEE Embedded
Systems Letters, Vol. 3, No. 3, pp. 81—84 (Sept. 2011) (“Stitt”)
THE REJECTIONS2
1. Claims 1,15, and 29 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a) as
anticipated by Owaida. (See Final Act. 2.)
2. Claims 1-3, 7-9, 11, 12, 1^19, 21-23, 25, 26, 28-30, and 32
stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Coole and
Owaida. (See Final Act. 2—3.3)
2 A rejection of claims 1,15, and 29 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a), first
paragraph, has been withdrawn. (See Ans. 3.)
3 As Appellants note (App. Br. 8 n.*), the Examiner’s rejection inadvertently
identifies claim 13 in its treatment of claim 14. (See Final Act. 8 (referring
to recitations found in claim 14), 13 (citing Stitt with respect to claim 13).)
3
Appeal 2016-008308
Application 13/369,836
3. Claims 4, 5, 6, 10, 13, 20, 24, 27, and 31 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Coole, Owiada, and Stitt. (See
Final Act. 3.)
APPELLANTS’ CONTENTION
Appellants argue the rejections are in error because “Owaida neither
shows nor renders obvious:
compiling a plurality of virtual programmable devices from de­
scriptions in said high-level programming language
as defined in . . . independent claim 1, or
selecting, as a result of said parsing, one previously compiled
virtual programmable device from among a library of virtual pro­
grammable devices previously compiled from a description in
said high-level programming language;
as defined in . . . independent claim 15, and in similar language in . . .
independent claim 29.” (App. Br. 12.)
ANALYSIS
Appellants argue Owaida does not teach or suggest “a plurality of
virtual programmable devices from descriptions in said high-level
programming language” as recited in claim 1, and analogous limitations in
the other independent claims. (See App. Br. 12.) As the Examiner observes
(Ans. 4), however, this does not address the Section 103 rejections, in which
the Examiner found the subject limitations taught or suggested in Coole.
(See Non-Final Act. 12-13 (Claim 1); 16-18 (Claim 15); 18-20 (Claim 29).)
Regarding claim 1, for example, the Examiner found that Coole’s
“intermediate fabrics” are a “plurality of virtual programmable devices
compiled from descriptions in a high-level language.” (Id. at 12.)
4
Appeal 2016-008308
Application 13/369,836
Appellants’ argument that Owaida’s “architectural templates” do not teach
or suggest the claimed virtual programmable devices fails to rebut this
finding and the analogous findings for the other independent claims
supporting the obviousness rejection. Because the alleged failing of Owaida
is based on the particulars of how its “architectural templates” are generated,
Appellants’ argument does not necessarily apply (nor do they argue it
applies) to the “intermediate fabrics” of Coole. For these reasons,
Appellants’ arguments are insufficient to show error in the rejections of
claims 1—32 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a), and those rejections are sustained.
Because we sustain the rejections of all claims as obvious, we do not
reach the rejection of claims 1,15, and 29 as anticipated by Owaida. See In
re Hyon, 679 F.3d 1363, 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (finding affirmance of
rejection of all claims under Section 103(a) made it unnecessary to reach
other grounds of rejection); In re Gleave, 560 F.3d 1331, 1338 (Fed. Cir.
2009) (same).
DECISION
The rejections of claims 1—32 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) are affirmed.
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
5