Ex Parte Jain et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardJul 30, 2018

14021279 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 30, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR 14/021,279 09/09/2013 Ashish Jain 109712 7590 08/01/2018 Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. c/o Davidson Sheehan LLP 6836 Austin Center Blvd. Suite 320 Austin, TX 78731 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. 1458-120713 2663 EXAMINER LIN,JASON ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2125 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 08/01/2018 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): docketing@ds-patent.com AMD@DS-patent.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte ASHISH JAIN and ALEXANDER J. BRANOVER Appeal2018-002594 Application 14/021,279 Technology Center 2100 Before TERRENCE W. McMILLIN, KARA L. SZPONDOWSKI, and SCOTT B. HOWARD, Administrative Patent Judges. SZPONDOWSKI, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C Â§ 134(a) of the Examiner's Final Rejection of claims 1-3 and 10-12, constituting all claims currently pending in the application. Claims 4--9 and 13-18 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim but would otherwise be allowable. Final Act. 11. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 6(b ). We REVERSE. Appeal2018-002594 Application 14/021,279 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants' invention is directed to "modifying a temperature value that is used to estimate leaking currents in processing devices." Spec. ,r 1. Claim 1, reproduced below with the disputed limitations in italics, is representative of the claimed subject matter: 1. A method, comprising: setting an operating point of at least one component in a processing device by estimating a leakage current based on a rate of overages for the at least one component, wherein the rate of overages is at least one of a rate of temperature overages or a rate of power overages for the at least one component, and wherein the operating point is at least one of an operating frequency or an operating voltage. REJECTION Claims 1-3 and 10-12 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103 as being unpatentable over Shaw et al. (US 2007 /0245161 Al; published Oct. 18, 2007) ("Shaw") and Morrow et al. (US 2010/0153954 Al; published June 17, 2010) ("Morrow"). Final Act. 6. ANALYSIS Issue: Did the Examiner err in finding that the combination of Shaw and Morrow teaches or suggests "setting an operating point of at least one component in a processing device by estimating a leakage current based on a rate of overages for the at least one component," as recited in independent claim 1 and commensurately recited in independent claim 1 O? 2 Appeal2018-002594 Application 14/021,279 The Examiner relies on Shaw to teach setting an operating point of a component in a processing device by a rate of overages. Ans. 3--4 ( citing Shaw ,r 63); see Final Act. 6-7. The Examiner finds Morrow teaches estimating leakage current based on sensed information. Ans. 6 ( citing Morrow ,r 52); see Final Act. 7. Appellants contend the claim requires estimating a leakage current based on a rate of overages for the at least one component, but Morrow teaches estimating leakage current based on temperature determined by a temperature sensor. App. Br. 4. Appellants argue neither Shaw nor Morrow teaches a relationship between a rate of overages and a leakage current, as required by claim 1. Reply Br. 4. We are persuaded by Appellants' arguments. As Appellants point out (Reply Br. 4), neither Shaw nor Morrow teaches a relationship between a rate of overages and a leakage current. Specifically, Shaw teaches "if the current fell significantly below the power cap more than a predetermined percentage of the time ... the power management logic 109 may dynamically decrease the power cap used in comparison to the current values retrieved from the components." Shaw ,r 63. Morrow teaches that "[b ]ased on a particular temperature sensor reading ... leakage current information may be estimated." Morrow ,r 52. In other words, Shaw teaches setting an operating point (i.e., power cap) based on a rate of power overages (i.e., based on the current falling below the power cap); and Morrow teaches estimating a leakage current (i.e., leakage current information being estimated) based on sensed information (i.e., temperature). However, Shaw does not teach estimating a leakage current at 3 Appeal2018-002594 Application 14/021,279 all, and Morrow does not teach estimating a leakage current based on a rate of overages. We find the Examiner has not provided sufficient findings that either Shaw or Morrow, separately or in combination, relates the rate of overages (i.e., Shaw's current falling below the power cap) to a leakage current (i.e., Morrow's leakage current information). Accordingly, we are constrained, based on the record, to reverse the Examiner's rejection of independent claims 1 and 10. Because we agree with at least one of the arguments advanced by Appellants, we need not reach the merits of Appellants' other arguments. We, therefore, do not sustain the Examiner's 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) rejection of claims 1-3 and 10- 12. DECISION The Examiner's decision to reject claims 1-3 and 10-12 is reversed. REVERSED 4