Ex Parte Elnozahy et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardSep 17, 2012

10713733 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 17, 2012)

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. 10/713,733 11/13/2003 Elmootazbellah Nabil Elnozahy AUS920030760US1 2697 75500 7590 09/18/2012 LAW OFFICE OF JACK V. MUSGROVE (IBM) 2911 BRIONA WOOD LANE CEDAR PARK, TX 78613 EXAMINER SAVLA, ARPAN P ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2185 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 09/18/2012 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 ELMOOTAZBELLAH NABIL ELNOZAHY, JAMES LYLE PETERSON, RAMAKRISHNAN RAJAMONY, and HAZIM SHAFI _____________ Appeal 2009-015084 Application 10/713,733 Technology Center 2100 ______________ Before ERIC S. FRAHM, DAVID M. KOHUT, and BRYAN F. MOORE, Administrative Patent Judges. KOHUT, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the non-final rejection of claims 1-20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We reverse the Examiner’s rejections of these claims. Appeal 2009-015084 Application 10/713,733 2 INVENTION The invention is directed to a method, controller, and system for assigning virtual memory to physical memory in a data processing system. Spec. 7-8. Claim 1 is representative of the invention and is reproduced below: 1. A method of assigning virtual memory to physical memory in a data processing system, comprising the steps of: allocating a set of physical memory pages of the data processing system for a new virtual superpage mapping; instructing a memory controller of the data processing system to move a plurality of virtual memory pages corresponding to an old page mapping to the set of physical memory pages corresponding to the new virtual superpage mapping; and accessing at least one of the virtual memory pages using the new virtual superpage mapping while the memory controller is copying old physical memory pages to new physical memory pages. REFERENCES Arimilli US 5,974,507 Oct. 26, 1999 Christie US 6,175,906 B1 Jan. 16, 2001 Armangau US 6,434,681 B1 Aug. 13, 2002 Waldspurger US 6,725,289 B1 Apr. 20, 2004 (filed Apr. 17, 2002) Andrew S. Tanenbaum, Structured Computer Organization, pp. 10-12 (Prentice-Hall, Inc., 2nd Ed. 1984) (“Tanenbaum”). Appeal 2009-015084 Application 10/713,733 3 Madhusudhan Talluri et al., Surpassing the TLB Performance of Superpages with Less Operating System Support, ACM SIGOPS Operating Systems Review Volume 28, Issue 5 (1994) (“Talluri”). Theodore H. Romer et al., Reducing TLB and Memory Overhead Using Online Superpage Promotion, pp. 176-187, 22nd Annual Int’l Symposium on Computer Architecture (22-24 June 1995) (“Romer”). John L. Hennessy et al., Computer Organization and Design, The Hardware/Software Interface, pp. 657, 658, 668 (Morgan Kaufmann Publishers, Inc., Second Ed., 1998) (“Hennessy”). REJECTIONS AT ISSUE Claims 1-5, 7, 9-11, 14, 17, 19, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Applicants’ Admitted Prior Art (AAPA) and Armangau. Ans. 4-11. Claims 6 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of AAPA, Armangau, and Christie. Ans. 11-13. Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of AAPA, Armangau, and Romer. Ans. 13-14. Claims 12 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of AAPA, Armangau, and Waldspurger. Ans. 14-15. Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of AAPA, Armangau, and Talluri. Ans. 15-17. Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of AAPA, Armangau, and Arimilli. Ans. 17-18. Appeal 2009-015084 Application 10/713,733 4 ISSUE Did the Examiner err in finding that the combination of AAPA and Armangau teaches or suggests accessing a virtual superpage using a new mapping while the memory controller is still copying pages?1 ANALYSIS Independent claim 1 recites “accessing at least one of the virtual memory pages using the new virtual superpage mapping while the memory controller is copying old physical memory pages to new physical memory pages.” Independent claims 7 and 14 contain similar limitations. Claims 2- 6, 8-13, and 15-20 are dependent upon claims 1, 7, and 14 (respectively). Appellants argue that Armangau does not teach this limitation because Armangau’s snapshot does not create a new page mapping. App. Br. 14. The Examiner finds that Armangau does teach new page mapping since, due to write operations during the copy process, the snapshot mapping is not the same as the original production volume. Ans. 21. We disagree with the Examiner. According to the Examiner’s interpretation of the reference, Armangau’s original production volume changes and the snapshot mapping stays the same. Ans. 21. This is not the same as that which is claimed since the claim requires the virtual superpage mapping, not the old page mapping, to change. Thus, the Examiner has not shown and we do not find that Armangau or AAPA teaches accessing at least one of the virtual memory 1 Appellants make additional arguments with respect to claims 1-20. App. Br. 9-21. We will not address the additional arguments as this issue is dispositive of the appeal. Appeal 2009-015084 Application 10/713,733 5 pages using the new virtual superpage mapping, as required by claim 1. Therefore, we cannot sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1-20. CONCLUSION The Examiner erred in finding that the combination of AAPA and Armangau teaches or suggests accessing a virtual superpage using a new mapping while the memory controller is still copying pages. SUMMARY The Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1-20 is reversed. REVERSED msc