Ex Parte Dror et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 31, 2017

12631662 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 31, 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.
12/631,662 12/04/2009 Asael Dror 327994U SNP/104709.0615 2231
41505 7590
Baker & Hostetler LLP (MICROSOFT CORPORATION)
CIRA CENTRE, 12TH FLOOR
2929 ARCH STREET
PHILADELPHIA, PA 19104-2891
EXAMINER
THOMPSON, JAMES A
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2616
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
04/04/2017 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):
u sdocket @ micro soft .com
eofficemonitor@bakerlaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte ASAEL DROR, HAO ZHANG, B. ANIL KUMAR, STUART
RAY PATRICK, NEAL D. MARGULIS, LIN TAN, PANDELE
STANESCU, MARTIN AMON, and MIRIAM BARBARA SEDMAN
Appeal 2016-008446
Application 12/631,6621
Technology Center 2600
Before CAROLYN D. THOMAS, JEFFREY S. SMITH, and
TERRENCE W. McMILLIN, Administrative Patent Judges.
McMILLIN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the rejection
of claims 1—3, 6—13, 15, 16, and 18—22. Non-Final Act. 1. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Microsoft Technology
Licensing, LLC (App. Br. 1).
Appeal 2016-008446
Application 12/631,662
REJECTIONS ON APPEAL
Claims 18—20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as being directed
towards non-statutory subject matter. Non-Final Act. 3.
Claims 13, 15, 16, and 18—22 stand rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) as being anticipated by Blythe (US 2006/0146057 Al, published
July 6, 2006). Non-Final Act. 5.
Claims 1—3 and 6—12 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Green (US 2007/0008324 Al, published Jan. 11, 2007),
Blythe, andNaegle (US 2005/0001844 Al, published Jan. 6, 2005).
THE CLAIMED INVENTION
The present invention generally relates to “virtualization to abstract
underlying hardware,” and more particularly to “virtualizing a graphics
accelerator such as a GPU.” Spec. Tflf 3, 5. Independent claim 1 is directed
to a method; independent claim 13 is directed to a system; and independent
claim 18 is directed to a computer readable storage medium. App. Br. 30,
31,33.
Claim 1 recites
1. In a system comprising a processor, memory, and a
graphics accelerator, a method for providing para-virtualized
abstracted graphics accelerator functionality configured to present a
software interface that is independent of a particular graphics
accelerator product, the method comprising:
receiving, from an application executing on a first partition, a
request for a graphics rendering function, said request corresponding
to at least one operation associated with a virtual representation of a
graphics processing unit, the virtual representation of an abstracted
software-implemented GPU that presents a software interface
different from that of the particular graphics accelerator product and
configured to provide a set of graphics rendering functions to a virtual
2
Appeal 2016-008446
Application 12/631,662
machine executing in the first partition, wherein said at least one
operation is translated to one or more instructions executable on a
graphics accelerator associated with a second partition, and wherein
the at least one operation is translated based on predetermined
relationships between hardware-specific operations on the graphics
accelerator and abstracted graphics operations that are independent of
the hardware-specific operations of the abstracted software-
implemented GPU;
causing the execution of said one or more instructions on said
graphics accelerator; and
providing results of the execution of said one or more
instructions to the virtual machine for further processing.
Claim 13 recites
13. A system configured to provide para-virtualized
abstracted graphics accelerator functionality to a virtual machine, the
functionality configured to present a software interface that is
independent of a particular graphics accelerator product, the system
comprising:
at least one processor; and
at least one memory communicatively coupled to said at least
one processor, the memory having stored therein computer-executable
instructions for:
generating a virtual machine session, the virtual machine
session including a user mode display driver;
adapting at least one operation to correspond to one or more
instructions executable on an underlying graphics processing unit, the
at least one operation corresponding to a graphics primitive of the user
mode display driver, the at least one operation associated with a
virtual graphics processing unit,
the virtual graphics processing unit configured to provide
a set of graphics rendering functions, the virtual graphics
processing unit comprising an abstracted software-implemented
3
Appeal 2016-008446
Application 12/631,662
GPU that presents a software interface different from that of the
particular graphics accelerator product,
wherein the at least one operation is adapted based on at least
one predetermined relationship between one or more hardware-
specific operations on the underlying graphics processing unit and one
or more abstracted graphics operations that are independent of the one
or more hardware-specific operations of the abstracted software-
implemented GPU; and
causing execution of said one or more instructions on said
underlying graphics processing unit.
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of App
arguments that the Examiner erred. We axe not persuaded that Appellants
identify reversible error. Upon consideration of the arguments presented in
the Appeal Brief and Reply Brief, we agree with the Examiner that all the
pending claims are unpatentable over the cited combination of references.
We adopt as our own the findings and reasons set forth in the rejection from
which this appeal is taken and in the Examiner’s Answer. We provide the
following explanation to highlight and address specific arguments and
findings primarily for emphasis.
Rejection under § 101 of Claims 18—22
Claims 18—22 were rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as directed to non-
statutory subject matter. Appellants argue that use of the word “storage” to
modify “medium” within the phrase “computer readable storage medium”
indicates that the claim covers non-transitory embodiments and not
transitory embodiments such as signals. App. Br. 7; see Reply Br. 2.
4
Appeal 2016-008446
Application 12/631,662
However, “those of ordinary skill in the art would understand the claim term
‘machine-readable storage medium’ would include signals per se.”2 Ex
parte Mewherter, 107 USPQ2d 1857, 1862 (PTAB 2013) (precedential).
The Mewherter panel explained, “a signal with embedded data [is a storage
medium] for data can be copied and held by a transitory recording medium,
albeit temporarily, for future recovery of the embedded data.” Id. We find
nothing in Appellants’ Specification that leads us to construe “computer
readable storage medium” more narrowly. Specifically, although Appellants
argue “every reference to ‘medium’ in Appellants’] specification only
discusses tangible devices” and “made no mention of transitory signals,”
nothing in Appellants’] Specification excludes transitory signals as a
definition of a medium. Reply Br. 2; see App. Br. 8; see also Spec. 23,
30, 117. Therefore, we sustain the rejections of claims 18—22 under
35U.S.C. § 101.
Rejection under § 102(b) of Claims 13, 15, 16, and 18—22
Appellants contend Blythe does not describe “generating a virtual
machine session, the virtual machine session including a user mode display
driver,” as recited in claim 13 (emphasis added). See Reply Br. 3; see also
App. Br. 12. The Examiner finds Blythe’s input and output devices “are the
kinds of structures that are virtualized by the architectures of the invention”
and the “user input device is virtualized through a user input interface
connected to the system, allowing the user to enter commands and
2 We note “machine-readable storage medium” and “computer-readable
storage medium” are equivalent terms. Mewherter, 107 USPQ2d at 1859 n.
2.
5
Appeal 2016-008446
Application 12/631,662
information to the computer, which are reflected in what is displayed on the
display,” and Blythe’s “virtual session (of the virtualized user input device
connected to the computer) includes a user mode display driver (driving the
display according to the user input).” Ans. 19—20. We agree with the
Examiner.
Appellants’ argument is based on Appellants’ contention that Blythe
makes “no reference to a user mode display driver.” App. Br. 12. However,
neither claim 13 nor Appellants’ Specification provides any further limiting
definition of a “user mode display driver.” Id. As is understood by those
skilled in the art, a “driver (which is always software) provides instructions
for reformatting or interpreting software commands for transfer to and from
peripheral devices and the central processor unit (CPU). . . [i]n other words,
the driver is a software module that ‘drives’ the data out of a specific
hardware port.” Driver, Newton’s Telecom Dictionary (20th ed. 2004).
Therefore, the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claimed “user mode
display driver” encompasses software that processes the virtualization of
input devices through a user input interface in Blythe cited by the Examiner.
See Ans. 19—20, citing Blythe Fig. 6 and 134.
Appellants have not provided persuasive evidence that the “user mode
display driver,” as recited in claim 13, is not described by Blythe’s
virtualization of input devices through a user input interface.
Appellants further contend Blythe does not describe “adapting at least
one operation to correspond to one or more instructions executable on an
underlying graphics processing unit, the at least one operation corresponding
to a graphics primitive of the user mode display driver, the at least one
operation associated with a virtual graphics processing unit,” as recited in
6
Appeal 2016-008446
Application 12/631,662
claim 13. See App. Br. 13; see also Reply Br. 4—5. Specifically, Appellants
argue that Blythe describes there is no equivalent of program translation, and
fails to describe “adaptation of an operation, adaptation to instructions
executable on an underlying graphics processing unit, nor a virtual graphics
processing unit.” App. Br. 13. The Examiner finds Blythe describes that
emulation and translation amount to the same thing, and Blythe describes
“operations on virtual machines adapted to corresponding instructions
executable on the underlying GPU used to virtualize the machines,” as well
as “how the graphics processing pipelines apply graphics primitives.” Ans.
20—21, 5—6. We agree with the Examiner.
Blythe discloses:
For an API like the graphics device interface (GDI), it may be
practical to emulate the entire stack in software, but for newer
APIs that depend on hardware acceleration, the performance
degradation may be unacceptable. One possibility is to redirect
graphics processing requests from the Guest OS to the Host OS,
for example, using software emu/a h'o /? /1 r ap p i n g of the low-level
hardware interfaces of a well-known graphics hardware device.
Blythe 67 (emphasis added). In other words, Blythe describes emulating
the entire stack in software for a GDI and emulating graphics processing
requests. As such, Blythe describes emulating, or adapting, operations
corresponding to a graphics processing unit, the operations associated with a
graphics driver and an emulated graphics unit.
Appellants have not provided persuasive evidence that the “adapting
at least one operation to correspond to one or more instructions executable
on an underlying graphics processing unit, the at least one operation
corresponding to a graphics primitive of the user mode display driver, the at
least one operation associated with a virtual graphics processing unit,” as
7
Appeal 2016-008446
Application 12/631,662
recited in claim 13, is not described by Blythe’s emulating operations
corresponding to a graphics processing unit, the operations associated with a
graphics driver and an emulated graphics unit.
Appellants further contend Blythe does not describe “the virtual
graphics processing unit configured to provide a set of graphics rendering
functions, the virtual graphics processing unit comprising an abstracted
software-implemented GPU that presents a software interface different from
that of the particular graphics accelerator product” and
wherein the at least one operation is adapted based on at least
one predetermined relationship between one or more hardware-
specific operations on the underlying graphics processing unit
and one or more abstracted graphics operations that are
independent of the one or more hardware-specific operations of
the abstracted software-implemented GPU,
as recited in claim 13. App. Br. 14—15; Reply Br. 6—8 (emphasis added).
Specifically, Appellants argue Blythe makes “no reference to a virtual
graphics processing unit, nor do the citations disclose an abstracted
software-implemented GPU,” “no reference to abstracted graphics
operations that are independent of the hardware-specific,” and Blythe’s
description of execution of commands from the same graphics architecture
contradicts the claimed “abstracted software-implemented GPU that presents
a software interface different from that of the particular graphics accelerator
product” and the claimed “one or more abstracted graphics operations that
are independent of the one or more hardware-specific operations of a
particular graphics processing unit.” App. Br. 14, 15, 16; Reply Br. 6, 7—8.
The Examiner finds Blythe describes “virtualized GPUs and interfaces
emulated in the system, thus performing rendering and other operations (set
of graphics rendering functions) which are independent of hardware specific
8
Appeal 2016-008446
Application 12/631,662
operations and different from that of the particular graphics accelerator”
since “the virtualization is used to mimic the guest computer” and “the
graphics operations can be considered to be abstracted.” Ans. 24. We agree
with the Examiner.
As cited by the Examiner, Blythe discloses:
The virtualizer program acts as the interchange between the
hardware architecture of the host machine and the instructions
transmitted by the software (e.g., operating systems,
applications, etc.) running within the emulated environment.
This virtualizer program may be a host operating system (HOS),
which is an operating system running directly on the physical
computer hardware (and which may comprise a hypervisor,
discussed in greater detailed later herein). Alternately, the
emulated environment might also be a virtual machine monitor
(VMM) which is a software layer that runs directly above the
hardware, perhaps running side-by-side and working in
conjunction with the host operating system, and which can
virtualize all the resources of the host machine (as well as certain
virtual resources) by exposing interfaces that are the same as the
hardware the VMM is virtualizing . . .
For an API like the graphics device interface (GDI), it may be
practical to emulate the entire stack in software, but for newer
APIs that depend on hardware acceleration, the performance
degradation may be unacceptable. One possibility is to redirect
graphics processing requests from the Guest OS to the Host OS,
for example, using software emu/a h'o /? /1 r ap p i n g of the low-level
hardware interfaces of a well-known graphics hardware device.
Blythe Tflf 47, 67 (emphasis added). In other words, Blythe describes
virtualizing and emulating between hardware and software, and emulating
the entire stack in software for a GDI or emulating graphics processing
requests. As such, Blythe describes the virtualized abstracted software-
implemented GPU with a software interface different than that of the
hardware graphics accelerator product.
9
Appeal 2016-008446
Application 12/631,662
Appellants have not provided persuasive evidence that “the virtual
graphics processing unit configured to provide a set of graphics rendering
functions, the virtual graphics processing unit comprising an abstracted
software-implemented GPU that presents a software interface different from
that of the particular graphics accelerator product” and
wherein the at least one operation is adapted based on at least
one predetermined relationship between one or more hardware-
specific operations on the underlying graphics processing unit
and one or more abstracted graphics operations that are
independent of the one or more hardware-specific operations of
the abstracted software-implemented GPU,
as recited in claim 13 is not described by Blythe’s virtualized abstracted
software-implemented GPU with a software interface independent from and
different than that of the hardware graphics accelerator product and the
underlying graphics processing unit.
Accordingly, we sustain the § 102(b) rejection of independent claim
13, as well as the rejection of commensurate independent claim 18, argued
for the same reasons as claim 13, as well as the rejections of dependent
claims 15, 16, and 19—22, not separately argued. See App. Br. 16—22; see
also Reply Br. 8.
Rejection under § 103(a) of Claims 1—3 and 6—12
Appellants contend Green does not teach or suggest “an abstracted
software-implemented GPU,” as recited in claim 1. App. Br. 25.
Specifically, Appellants argue Green’s “virtual graphics adapter is not the
same as an abstracted software-implemented GPU.” App. Br. 24. In
response, the Examiner finds “Green teaches that there are virtualized
processors . . . partitioned and specifically used to execute graphics
10
Appeal 2016-008446
Application 12/631,662
software” and, thereby, “the virtualized processor used in such a way
constitutes ‘an abstracted software-implemented GPU.’” Ans. 26. We agree
with the Examiner.
As cited by the Examiner, Green discloses:
FIG. 2A illustrates a virtualized computing system comprising a
host operating system (host OS) software layer 204 running
directly above physical computer hardware 202, where the host
OS 204provides access to the resources of the physical computer
hardware 202 by exposing interfaces to partitions A 208 and B
210 for the use by operating systems 212 and 214, respectively.
Such virtual graphics adapters, allow applications running in the
VCPs to access graphics adapter resources 326 they may need.
For example, application A 316 could interface with the virtual
graphics adapter A 320 and through the graphics proxy process
314 ultimately access the graphics adapter resources 326.
Green || 23, 30 (emphasis added). In other words, Green teaches
virtualizing or abstracting the system, providing software layer access to the
physical computer resources, including providing virtual graphics adapters
access to graphics adapter resources.
Appellants have not provided persuasive evidence that “an abstracted
software-implemented GPU,” as recited in claim 1, is not taught or
otherwise suggested by Green’s virtualizing a system to allow software layer
access to physical computer resources including for virtual graphics adapters
and graphics adapter resources.
Appellants further contend Blythe is deficient for the same reasons as
with regards to claim 13. Therefore, we agree with the Examiner with
regards to Blythe teaching “the at least one operation is translated based on
predetermined relationships between hardware-specific operations on the
graphics accelerator and abstracted graphics operations that are independent
11
Appeal 2016-008446
Application 12/631,662
of the hardware-specific operations of the abstracted software-implemented
GPU,” as recited in claim 1, as noted supra.
Accordingly, we sustain the § 103(a) rejection of claim 1, as well as
the rejections of dependent claims 2, 3, 6—12, not separately argued. See
App. Br. 29.
DECISION
The § 101 rejection of claims 18—22 is affirmed.
The § 102 rejection of claims 13, 15, 16, and 18—22 is affirmed.
The § 103 rejection of claims 1—3 and 6—12 is 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
12