Ex Parte Indukuru et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardJan 27, 2017

12894762 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 27, 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. 12/894,762 09/30/2010 Venkat R. Indukuru AUS920100417US1 6578 65362 7590 01/31/2017 TERRILE, CANNATTI, CHAMBERS & HOLLAND, LLP IBM Austin P.O. BOX 203518 AUSTIN, TX 78720 EXAMINER XIAO, YUQING ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2182 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 01/31/2017 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): tmunoz @ tcchlaw. com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte VENKAT R. INDUKURU, ALEX MERICAS, BRIAN R. MESTAN, and IL PARK Appeal 2016-000882 Application 12/894,7621 Technology Center 2100 Before STEPHEN C. SIU, ERIC S. FRAHM, and MATTHEW J. McNEILL, Administrative Patent Judges. McNEILL, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 2, 4-9, 11-16, and 18-21, which are all the claims pending in this application.2 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. 1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is International Business Machines Corporation. App. Br. 1. 2 Claims 3, 10, and 17 are canceled. App. Br. 8-10 (Claims App’x). Appeal 2016-000882 Application 12/894,762 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Introduction Appellants’ application relates to monitoring instructions executing on a processor to identify instructions that will benefit from performance tuning. Abstract. Claim 1 is illustrative of the appealed subject matter and reads as follows: 1. A method for filtering events at a processor to identify events for dynamic optimization performance tuning, the method comprising: executing plural instructions at the processor using dynamic optimization performance tuning to adapt the plural instructions during the executing; monitoring a randomly marked sample of the plural instructions for predetermined filter criteria, each instruction having an effective address, the filter criteria including a first result of an instruction execution, the instruction execution having at least first and second results; counting each of the plural instructions having the predetermined filter criteria, the instruction count tracked by the effective address of each instruction and increasing for each instruction execution having the first result; reducing the instruction count associated with an effective address if the associated instruction execution has the second result; detecting that one or more of the plural instructions meets a threshold count as tracked by the effective address; and in response to the detecting, identifying each of the one or more detected plural instructions to have dynamic optimization performance tuning. 2 Appeal 2016-000882 Application 12/894,762 The Examiner’s Rejections3 Claims 1, 4-9, 11-16, and 18-20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Hsu et al. (US 2009/0287903 Al; Nov. 19, 2009), Talcott et al. (US 7,096,390 B2; Aug. 22, 2006), and John L. Hennessy & David A. Patterson, Computer Architecture: A Quantitative Approach, 3rd Edition, 2002 (“Hennessy”). Final Act. 7-17. Claims 2 and 21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Hsu, Talcott, Hennessy, and Chauvel (US 2002/0065992 Al; May 30, 2002). Final Act. 17-20. ANAFYSIS We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellants’ contentions that the Examiner has erred. We disagree with Appellants’ contentions. Except as noted below, we adopt as our own: (1) the findings and reasons set forth by the Examiner in the action from which this appeal is taken and (2) the reasons set forth by the Examiner in the Examiner’s Answer in response to Appellants’ Appeal Brief. We concur with the conclusions reached by the Examiner. We highlight the following additional points. 3 In the Final Action, the Examiner rejected claims 3 and 10 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) as failing to comply with the written description requirement. Final Act. 4-5. Claims 3 and 10 were canceled by Appellants (App. Br. 8-9 (Claims App’x)), and this rejection was withdrawn in the Answer (Ans. 2). In the Final Action, the Examiner also rejected claims 1-8 and 10-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor regards as the invention. Final Act. 5-6. The Examiner withdrew this rejection in the Answer. Ans. 2. 3 Appeal 2016-000882 Application 12/894,762 Appellants argue the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1 because the cited combination does not teach or suggest “monitoring a randomly marked sample of the plural instructions for predetermined filter criteria, each instruction having an effective address, the filter criteria including a first result of an instruction execution, the instruction execution having at least first and second results.” App. Br. 3—4, Reply Br. 1-2. In particular, Appellants argue the Examiner relies on Hsu for this limitation, but Hsu does not teach monitoring instructions. App. Br. 3. Appellants argue Hsu instead teaches monitoring the results of instructions. App. Br. 3—4. Specifically, Appellants argue Hsu teaches monitoring cache miss results, but cannot detect instructions that result in no miss. Id. Appellants have not persuaded us of Examiner error. The Examiner finds Hsu teaches tracking frequency of cache misses for a plurality of instructions. Ans. 3—4 (citing Hu Table 3). However, the Examiner relies on Talcott for teaching monitoring instructions rather than monitoring results. Ans. 5 (citing Talcott, Figs. 2A, 2B, 2:59-3:5). Talcott teaches monitoring a randomly marked sample of plural instructions until the instructions are completed. Ans. 5 (citing Fig. 2B). Talcott teaches taking different actions depending on whether the monitored instructions match specified criteria. Id. In other words, Talcott teaches monitoring instructions for different results and Hsu teaches monitoring cache misses. Appellants have not provided persuasive argument or identified persuasive evidence of record that the Examiner erred in these findings. Accordingly, we agree with the Examiner that the proposed combination teaches or suggests “monitoring a randomly marked sample of the plural instructions for predetermined filter criteria, each instruction having an effective address, 4 Appeal 2016-000882 Application 12/894,762 the filter criteria including a first result of an instruction execution, the instruction execution having at least first and second results.” On this record, we, therefore, sustain the rejection of independent claim 1. We also sustain the rejection of independent claims 9 and 16, which Appellants argue for the same reasons as claim 1, and dependent claims 2, 4-8, 11-15, and 18-21, which were not argued separately. See App. Br. 4-6. DECISION We affirm the decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1, 2, 4-9, 11- 16, and 18-21. 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 5