Ex Parte Gorti et al

Patent Trials and Appeals BoardFeb 26, 2016

12948710 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Feb. 26, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR 12/948,710 11/17/2010 Atchyuth K. Gorti 109712 7590 03/01/2016 Advanced Micro Devices, Inc, c/o Davidson Sheehan LLP 700 Lavaca Suite 1400-2323 Austin, TX 78701 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. 1458-100175 4402 EXAMINER LE, DIEU MINH T ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2114 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 03/01/2016 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): docketing@ds-patent.com caitlin.taylor@ds-patent.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte ATCHYUTH K. GORTI, VANCE THREATT, and VENKAT K. KUCHIPUDI Appeal2014-003975 Application 12/948, 710 Technology Center 2100 Before MAHSHID D. SAADAT, JOHNNY A. KUMAR, and JON M. JURGOV AN, Administrative Patent Judges. SAADAT, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellants 1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 134(a) from a final rejection of claims 1-20, which are all the pending claims in this application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 6(b). We affirm. 1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. (App. Br. 1 ). Appeal2014-003975 Application 12/948, 710 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Introduction Appellants' invention relates to improving the efficiency of debugging a computer processor (Spec. if 1 ). Claim 1 is illustrative of the invention and reads as follows: 1. A method comprising: executing a first test pattern from a plurality of test patterns of a logic built-in self test (LBIST); generating a first value based on the first test pattern; comparing the first value to a second value; and terminating the LBIST in response to determining that the first value does not equal the second value. The Examiner's Rejection Claims 1-20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 102(b) as anticipated by Chelstrom et al. (US 2009/0083594 Al; l\1ar. 26, 2009) (see Ans. 3-11). Issues on Appeal Appellants' contentions present us with the following issues: 1. Did the Examiner err in finding Chelstrom discloses "terminating the LBIST in response to determining that the first value does not equal the second value," as recited in independent claim 1? 2. Did the Examiner err in finding Chelstrom discloses "executing a second test pattern from the plurality of test patterns of the LBIST in 2 Appeal2014-003975 Application 12/948, 710 response to determining that the first value equals the second value," as recited in claim 2? 2 ANALYSIS We have reviewed the Examiner's rejection in light of Appellants' contentions that the Examiner erred. We disagree with Appellants' conclusions. Claim 1 The Examiner finds Chelstrom's logic built-in self test (LBIST) compares a test signature to an expected signature, determines the logic is not operating properly if the signatures do not match, and then terminates the test operation via a stop signal (Ans. 14--16, citing Chelstrom i-fi-171, 79). The Examiner finds this test sequence of Chelstrom discloses "terminating the LBIST in response to determining that the first value does not equal the second value'; (id.). Appellants contend Chelstrom discloses termination of a built-in self test follows a comparison of the data signature to the expected data signature, but does not disclose a causative relationship between the comparison and the termination of the LBIST (App. Br. 3---6; Reply Br. 1). Appellants argue the result of Chelstrom' s comparison step, i.e., whether the comparison shows a match or shows a mismatch, does not affect the subsequent termination of the operation (id.). 2 Separate patentability is not argued for claims 3-20. (See App. Br. 8.) Except for our ultimate decision, these claims are not discussed further. 3 Appeal2014-003975 Application 12/948, 710 Appellants' contentions do not persuade us of Examiner error. Claim 1 does not require a specific causative and direct relationship between determining the test values are not equal and terminating the test, such as a temporal relationship that specifies when the test terminates. Thus, we agree with the Examiner's broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim limitation, based on the claim language and Appellants' disclosure (see Spec. i-fi-15, 29), that terminating Chelstrom's LBIST following a failed test discloses terminating the test "in response to" determining the first test value does not equal the second value (see Ans. 14--16). Claim 2 Appellants contend Chelstrom does not disclose the following alternatives provided in claims 1 and 2: 1) the first value does not equal the second value, and therefore the LBIST is terminated; or 2) the first value equals the second value, and therefore the second test pattern is executed (App. Br. 7-8; Reply Br. 2). Appellants argue Chelstrom does not disclose executing a second test pattern when the data signature matches the expected data signature, but instead discloses terminating a self test operation whether the data signature matches the expected data signature or not (id.). Appellants' contentions are not persuasive of Examiner error. Claim 2 does not require any specific relationship between the result of the first test pattern comparison and executing a second test pattern. We agree with the Examiner's finding that Chelstrom discloses testing multiple logic cores of a microprocessor (Ans. 16-19, citing Chelstrom i-fi-1 65, 71; see also Chelstrom i1 45, microprocessor includes a plurality of processor cores). Thus, in light of the Examiner's broadest reasonable interpretation of claim 2, we agree that Chelstrom's LBIST executes a second test pattern "in response to" a 4 Appeal2014-003975 Application 12/948, 710 passed test when the first core tested is functioning properly and the test then moves to a second core. DECISION The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1-20 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). AFFIRMED 5