Ex Parte Fornaeus et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardJul 27, 2018

13764329 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 27, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR 13/764,329 02/11/2013 Johan Fornaeus 30636 7590 07/27/2018 FAY KAPLUN & MARCIN, LLP 150 BROADWAY, SUITE 702 NEW YORK, NY 10038 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 ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO. 40101/22701 (2012006) 9632 EXAMINER DASCOMB, JACOB D ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2199 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 07/27/2018 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 JOHAN FORNAEUS and DENNIS RICE 1 Appeal2017-010392 Application 13/764,329 Technology Center 2100 Before ALLEN R. MacDONALD, CARLA M. KRIVAK, and DAVID J. CUTITTA II, Administrative Patent Judges. KRIVAK, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 134(a) from a final rejection of claims 1, 3-19, 21, and 22. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 6(b). We affirm. 1 Appellants identify the real party in interest as Wind River Systems, Inc., Alameda, California. Appeal2017-010392 Application 13/764,329 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants' invention is directed to a "method and system for deterministic multicore execution" (Title (formatting omitted)). Independent claim 1, reproduced below, is exemplary of the subject matter on appeal. 1. A system, comprising: a memory including a plurality of software applications, the plurality of software applications including a first software application and a second software application; a deterministic group comprising a first processing core, the first processing core executing a first resource monitor and the first software application; wherein the deterministic group executes specific tasks of the first software application in a specified time interval, a constrained group comprising a second processing core, the second processing core executing a second resource monitor and the second software application, wherein the first resource monitor detects an insufficient access to resources by the first processing core for executing specific tasks of the first software application and sends an indication to the second resource monitor indicating the insufficient access to resources by the first processing core for executing specific tasks for the first software application, and wherein the second resource monitor receives the indication and instructs the second processing core to modify execution of the second software application, wherein the modifying execution of the second software application comprises one of pausing execution of the second software application and throttling execution of the second software application for the specified time interval. Appeal Br. 15. 2 Appeal2017-010392 Application 13/764,329 REFERENCES and REJECTIONS The Examiner rejected claims 1, 3, 11, 12, and 21 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ I03(a) based upon the teachings ofMasuoka (US 6,081,826 issued June 27, 2000), Herdrich (US 2010/0250998 Al; published Sep. 30, 2010), and Murthy (US 2011/0167424 Al; published Jul. 7, 2011). The Examiner rejected claims 4 and 13 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ I03(a) based upon the teachings of Masuoka, Herdrich, Murthy, and Schmidt (US 8,286,174 Bl; issued Oct. 9, 2012). The Examiner rejected claims 5 and 14 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ I03(a) based upon the teachings of Masuoka, Herdrich, Murthy, and Carter (US 2009/0064158 Al; published Mar. 5, 2009). The Examiner rejected claims 6 and 15 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ I03(a) based upon the teachings Masuoka, Herdrich, Murthy, Carter, and Rotithor (US 2009/0248976 Al; published Oct. 1, 2009). The Examiner rejected claims 7, 8, 16, and 17 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ I03(a) based upon the teachings Masuoka, Herdrich, Murthy, and Schmidt (US 2004/0255296 Al; published Dec. 16, 2004). The Examiner rejected claims 9 and 18 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ I03(a) based upon the teachings Masuoka, Herdrich, Murthy, and Hotra (US 2009/0083734 Al; published Mar. 26, 2009). The Examiner rejected claims 10 and 19 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ I03(a) based upon the teachings Masuoka, Herdrich, Murthy, and Telang (US 8,516,121 Bl; issued Aug. 20, 2013). The Examiner rejected claims 22 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ I03(a) based upon the teachings of Masuoka, Herdrich, and Murthy, and Huscroft (US 2014/0215468 Al; published Jul. 31, 2014). 3 Appeal2017-010392 Application 13/764,329 ANALYSIS Appellants contend the Examiner erred in finding the combination of Masuoka, Herdrich, and Murthy fails to suggest "wherein the modifying execution of the second software application comprises one of pausing execution of the second software application and throttling execution of the second software application for the specified time interval" as claimed (App. Br. 4--8). Particularly, Appellants contend Murthy "fails to disclose throttling the execution of a software application" (App. Br. 4, 6) and "pausing [or] throttling execution of the second software application for the specified time interval" (italics partially omitted) (App. Br. 6). Appellants argue Masuoka and Herdrich do not cure the deficiency of Murthy (App. Br. 8). We do not agree. We agree with and adopt the Examiner's findings in the Final Action and Answer as our own. Initially we note the Examiner relies on Herdrich for teaching the limitation "the deterministic group executes specific tasks of the first software application in a specific time interval" (Final Act. 5 citing Herdrich i-f 4 7, "In one embodiment, an operating system schedules time (time-slicing) to different applications based on their priorities. A low priority program is allocated with a shorter time-slice than a high priority program"). The Examiner also cites to paragraph 28 of Herdrich ("'a low priority program competes for a same set of shared resources with a high priority program in a multi-core processor system', emphasis added, the high priority program corresponds to the first software application") (Final Act. 5-6). The Examiner's Answer states this "claimed limitation is obvious in view of Herdrich and further in view of Murthy. As cited in the final rejection mailed on 8/23/2016, Herdrich teaches a time interval of a first 4 Appeal2017-010392 Application 13/764,329 application .... (the time slice corresponds to the time interval)" (Ans. 18 citing Herdrich's ,r 47). Appellants do not address the Examiner's findings with respect to Herdrich in the Appeal Brief. Appellants ultimately address the Examiner's findings only with respect to Herdrich's paragraph 47 in the Reply Brief (Reply Br. 4). Appellants' Reply acknowledges "Murthy discloses performing throttling during a time window" (Reply Br. 3). Appellants then address Herdrich's paragraph 47, stating "Applicant is unsure why the Examiner believes that an operating system scheduling time to different applications 'effectively throttles the lower priority application for the time interval of the first application"' (Reply Br. 4). However, as noted above, Herdrich's paragraph 28 states "a low priority program competes for a same set of shared resources with a high priority program in a multi-core processor system." That is, the lower and higher priority applications share the same resources and thus, the same time period ("a low priority program is allocated with a shorter time-slice than a high priority program" (Herdrich ,r 47). It would have been obvious to an artisan of ordinary skill at the time of Appellants' invention, in light of teachings of Murthy, Herdrich (i-fi-f 47 and 28), and Masuoka, that Appellants' second software application would either be paused or throttled during the specified time interval in which the first application is executing. Therefore, we agree with the Examiner's findings and sustain the rejection of independent claim 1, independent claims 11 and 21 argued therewith (App. Br. 8), and dependent claims 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, and 22 argued for substantially the same reasons (App. Br. 8-11, and 13). 5 Appeal2017-010392 Application 13/764,329 Appellants separately argue dependent claims 10 and 19, asserting Telang does not disclose "the second processing core pauses execution of the second software application until a completion of a current time frame of the first software application" as claimed (App. Br. 11 ). We do not agree. We agree with the Examiner's findings and adopt them as our own (Final Act. 15-16; Ans. 19-21). Particularly, we agree Telang's column 5, lines 5---6, recites a "job is paused and any data transfer operation is stopped" (Final Act. 15; Ans. 21). Specifically, the Examiner finds Telang's "pausing a backup job for a sleep time period will allow the process contributing to the current network load to continue executing" during the sleep time interval (Ans. 20). We again note the Examiner also cited Herdrich for teaching a specific time interval, which Appellants did not address in the Appeal Brief or the Reply Brief. The Examiner provides a sufficiently articulated rational basis supporting the finding of obviousness. Thus, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of dependent claims 10 and 19. For the above reasons, we are not persuaded of Examiner error. We find the weight of the evidence supports the Examiner's ultimate legal conclusion of obviousness. Therefore sustain the Examiner's rejection of claims 1, 3-19, 21, and 22 DECISION The Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1, 3-19, 21, and 22 is affirmed. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. Â§ 1.136(a)(l )(iv). 6 Appeal2017-010392 Application 13/764,329 AFFIRMED 7