Ex Parte HAGERSTEN et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Nov 27, 2018

14549065 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 27, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 14/549,065 11/20/2014 30593 7590 11/29/2018 HARNESS, DICKEY & PIERCE, P.L.C. P.O. BOX 8910 RESTON, VA 20195 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Erik HAGERSTEN 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. 2557-002815-US-02 9123 EXAMINER THOMAS, JAMES JORDAN ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2139 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 11/29/2018 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): dcmailroom@hdp.com jcastellano@hdp.com jhill@hdp.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte ERIK HAGERSTEN, ANDREAS SEMBRANT, DAVID BLACK- SCHAFFER, and STEFANOS KAXIRAS Appeal2018-002008 Application 14/549,065 1 Technology Center 2100 Before THU A. DANG, JASON J. CHUNG, and CARLL. SILVERMAN, Administrative Patent Judges. CHUNG, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the Final Rejection of claims 1-24. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ). We reverse and enter a new ground of rejection. INVENTION The invention is directed to identifying cache locations in cache memory systems. Spec. ,r 2. Claim 1 is illustrative of the invention and is reproduced below: 1. A cache memory system comprising: a cache location buffer configured to store cache location entries, wherein each cache location entry includes an address 1 According to Appellants, Green Cache AB is the real party in interest. App. Br. 2. Appeal2018-002008 Application 14/549,065 tag and a cache location table which are associated with a respective cacheline stored in a cache memory, wherein the cache location table indicates both a current level and a current way where the respective cacheline is currently stored; a first cache memory configured to store cachelines, at least one cacheline having data and a location of its corresponding cache location entry in said cache location buff er; and a second cache memory configured to store cachelines, at least one cacheline having data and a location of its corresponding cache location entry in said cache location buff er; and wherein, responsive to a memory access request for a cacheline, the cache location buffer generates access information using one of the cache location tables for one of said first and second cache memories which enables direct access to said cacheline without performing a tag comparison with an address tag associated with a cacheline at one of the first and second cache memories since the cache location tables provide both current level and way information for the cacheline. App. Br. 24 (Claims Appemdix). REJECTIONS AT ISSUE2 Claims 1-8, 10-20, and 22-24 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Chang et al. (US 2014/0351518 Al; filed May 24, 2013) (hereinafter "Chang") and Hagersten et al. (US 5,778,427; issued July 7, 1998) (hereinafter "Hagersten"). Ans. 2-11. 2 Because the rejection of claims 1 and 13 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) is withdrawn, we do not list it here. Compare Ans. 12 (withdrawing the rejection) with Final Act. 2-3 (the § 112(b) rejection). 2 Appeal2018-002008 Application 14/549,065 Claims 9 and 21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Chang, Hagersten, and Kumar et al. (US 6,247,094 Bl; issued June 12, 2001) (hereinafter "Kumar"). Ans. 11- 12. We have only considered those arguments that Appellants actually raised in the Briefs. Arguments Appellants could have made, but chose not to make, in the Briefs have not been considered and are deemed to be waived. See 37 C.F.R. § 4I.37(c)(l)(iv). ANALYSIS Claim 1 states, "a first cache memory configured to store cachelines, at least one cacheline having data and a location of its corresponding cache location entry in said cache location buffer." Independent claim 13 recites similar features. The Examiner finds Hagersten teaches and suggests a cacheline having both data and a location. Ans. 19. In addition, the Examiner finds Hagersten teaches and suggests an address tag signifying a location that a corresponding cache location entry in a cache location buffer points to, which the Examiner maps to the limitation "a first cache memory configured to store cachelines, at least one cacheline having data and a location of its corresponding cache location entry in said cache location buffer" recited in claim 1 (and similarly recited in claim 13). Id. at 24 (citing Hagersten, 2:1- 11, 3:23-35, Fig. 3B). Appellants argue Hagersten's address tag does not teach or suggest the limitation "a location of [the data's] corresponding cache location entry in said cache location buffer" recited in claims 1 and 13 because Hagersten's 3 Appeal2018-002008 Application 14/549,065 address tag is used to perform searches on the cached data rather than indicating the location of the data. App. Br. 15. We agree with Appellants. As an initial matter, although the Examiner did not proffer a claim construction, claim construction is an issue of law that is left for a court or a tribunal. "[W]hen the district court reviews only evidence intrinsic to the patent (the patent claims and specifications, along with the patent's prosecution history), the judge's determination will amount solely to a determination of law." Teva Pharms. USA, Inc. v. Sandoz, Inc., 135 S. Ct. 831, 841 (2015). "[T]he ultimate issue of the proper construction of a claim should be treated as a question of law." Id. at 838. We construe claim terms according to their broadest reasonable construction in light of the specification of the patent or application in which they appear. In re Bigio, 381 F.3d 1320, 1324 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Consistent with the broadest reasonable construction, claim terms are generally given their ordinary and customary meaning, as understood by a person of ordinary skill in the art, in the context of the entire specification. In re Translogic Tech., Inc., 504 F.3d 1249, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 2007). Also, we must be careful not to read a particular embodiment appearing in the written description into the claim if the claim language is broader than the embodiment. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 1184 (Fed. Cir. 1993) ("[L ]imitations are not to be read into the claims from the specification."). However, a term may be defined in the specification with reasonable clarity, deliberateness, and precision. In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1480 (Fed. Cir. 1994). In this case, from the plain meaning of claims 1 and 13, we conclude there are two reasonable constructions for "its" within the limitation "a 4 Appeal2018-002008 Application 14/549,065 location of its corresponding cache location entry in said cache location buffer" ( emphasis added). The first construction of "its" is "at least one cacheline' s." The second construction of "its" is "the data's" as Appellants argue. App. Br. 15. In addition to the plain meaning of claims 1 and 13, the Specification supports both constructions. Compare Spec. ,r,r 16, 45 ( describing the location of cachelines) with id. ,r,r 42, 45 ( describing the locations of data). Hagersten discloses address tags that are used to search for cachelines, wherein, if there is a match, retrieving the data field of the cacheline; if there is no match, retrieving the target cacheline from the main memory; if there is no available cacheline, an old cacheline is selected for replacement. Hagersten, 3:66-4:11. We agree with Appellants that columns 3 and 4 of Hagersten, as relied on by the Examiner, cannot teach or suggest "a location of its corresponding cache location entry in said cache location buffer" recited in claims 1 and 13 because Hagersten' s address tag is used to perform searches for cache lines (of data). Id.; App. Br. 15. Stated another way, this section of Hagersten relied on by the Examiner does not teach or suggest "a location of its corresponding cache location entry in said cache location buffer" because the location of the cacheline of data is not known, but instead, the cacheline of data has to be searched in order to find its location. Hagersten, 3:66-4: 11. We note that Hagersten teaches that a cacheline has data and Appellants acknowledge that cachelines inherently have data. Id.; App. Br. 11. Therefore, under either claim construction of "its" as being "at least one cacheline's" or "the data's," Hagersten, as relied upon by the Examiner, fails 5 Appeal2018-002008 Application 14/549,065 to teach or suggest "a location of its corresponding cache location entry in said cache location buff er" recited in claims 1 and 13. Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of: (1) independent claims 1 and 13; and (2) dependent claims 2-12 and 14--24 under 35 U.S.C. § 103. NEW GROUNDS OF REJECTION Pursuant to our authority under 3 7 C.F .R. § 41.50(b ), we enter a new ground of rejection for claims 1-24 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b). As discussed supra in the Analysis section, there are two reasonable constructions for "its" within the limitation "a location of its corresponding cache location entry in said cache location buffer" ( emphasis added) recited in claims 1 and 13. "[I]f a claim is amenable to two or more plausible claim constructions, the USPTO is justified in requiring the applicant to more precisely define the metes and bounds of the claimed invention by holding the claim unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, as indefinite." Ex parte Miyazaki, 89 USPQ2d 1207, 1211-1212 (BPAI 2008) (precedential). Accordingly, we enter below a new ground of rejection of claims 1 and 13, and claims 2-12 and 14--24 depending respectively therefrom under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph. DECISION We reverse the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-24 under 35 U.S.C. § 103. 6 Appeal2018-002008 Application 14/549,065 We enter a new ground of rejection for claims 1-24 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) as explained supra. 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). TIME PERIOD This decision contains a new ground of rejection pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 4I.50(b). 37 C.F.R. § 4I.50(b) provides "[a] new ground of rejection pursuant to this paragraph shall not be considered final for judicial review." 37 C.F.R. § 4I.50(b) also provides that Appellant, WITHIN TWO MONTHS FROM THE DATE OF THE DECISION, must exercise one of the following two options with respect to the new ground of rejection to avoid termination of the appeal as to the rejected claims: (1) Reopen prosecution. Submit an appropriate amendment of the claims so rejected or new evidence relating to the claims so rejected, or both, and have the matter reconsidered by the examiner, in which event the proceeding will be remanded to the examiner. ... (2) Request rehearing. Request that the proceeding be reheard under § 41.52 by the Board upon the same record .... REVERSED; 37 C.F.R. § 4I.50(b) 7