Ex Parte James et al

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Mar 25, 2019

14620365 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Mar. 25, 2019)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
14/620,365 02/12/2015 Michael E. James
109712 7590 03/27/2019
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.
1458-140137 6612
EXAMINER
JOSHI, SURAJ M
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2447
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/27/2019 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 MICHAEL E. JAMES and JUSTIN R. UNGER
Appeal2018-007227
Application 14/620,365 1
Technology Center 2400
Before ROBERT E. NAPPI, ERIC S. FRAHM, and MICHAEL T. CYGAN,
Administrative Patent Judges.
CYGAN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF CASE
Introduction
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
Final Rejection of claims 1-7 and 9-20. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.
1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Advanced Micro
Devices. App. Br. 1.
Appeal2018-007227
Application 14/620,365
Disclosed Invention and Exemplary Claim
The disclosed invention relates to methods and systems for
configuring parameters at a cluster server having compute nodes. Spec. ,r 2.
The compute nodes execute software programs and facilitate the processing
of data while also facilitating build-up and scaling of the computer system.
Id. "During a bootstrap process, each compute node executes local firmware
to configure the compute node for operation," allowing each compute node
to be individually configured. Id. This process requires a set of
configuration parameters for configuring each node. Id. Appellants'
process and system comprise compute nodes that respond to boot requests
by sending requests to load configuration parameters to the management
node, which responds with configuration parameters. Abstract. A
configuration parameter module at the compute node receives the parameters
and provides the parameters to the compute node, thereby emulating a local
boot memory for the compute node. Abstract.
Independent claim 1 is exemplary of the disclosed invention, and
reads as follows (with key limitations of the claim emphasized):
1. A server system, comprising:
a plurality of compute nodes to execute services for the
server system, at least one of the plurality of compute nodes
comprising a first processor;
a management node to send configuration parameters to the
plurality of compute nodes during bootstrap of the server
system, the management node comprising a second processor;
and
wherein a compute node of the plurality of compute nodes
comprises a boot control module to intercept a request for a
configuration parameter formatted to target a local memory of
the compute node and to communicate the request for the
configuration parameter to the management node.
2
Appeal2018-007227
Application 14/620,365
Independent claim 11 recites a system having limitations
commensurate with claim 1. Independent claim 18 recites a method
having limitations commensurate with claim 1. All of dependent
claims 2-7, 9-10, 12-17, and 19-20 recite or incorporate limitations
commensurate with the above-emphasized limitations. Claim 8 was
cancelled during prosecution.
Examiner's Rejections
The Examiner rejects claims 1--4, 9-14, and 18-20 under 35 U.S.C.
§ I02(a)(l) as being anticipated by Wu et al. (U.S. 2014/0053149, published
Feb. 20, 2014) (hereinafter Wu).
The Examiner rejects claims 5-7 and 15-17 under 35 U.S.C. § 103
over the combination of Wu and Jubran (U.S. 2014/0173060 Al, published
Jun. 19, 2014) (hereinafter Jubran).
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner's rejections (Final Act. 2-10) in light
of Appellants' contentions that the Examiner has erred (App. Br. 1-9; Reply
Br. 2--4). Further, we have reviewed the Examiner's response to Appellants'
arguments (Ans. 10-11). We agree with Appellants' contention that the
Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1--4, 9-14, and 18-20 under 35 U.S.C.
§I02(a)(l).
Appellants contend that Wu does not teach all of the recited features
of claim 1. Specifically, Appellants contend Wu does not disclose a
compute node having a "boot control module" to intercept a request for a
3
Appeal2018-007227
Application 14/620,365
configuration parameter formatted to target a local memory of the compute
node" and to "communicate the request for the configuration parameter to
the management node." App. Br. 5.
In the rejection of claim 1, the Examiner finds the worker nodes of
Wu to be compute nodes that "perform configuration/deployment upon the
powering up [ofJ a worker node (boot control module)." Final Act. 2. The
Examiner further finds the worker node to receive a kernel from the master
node and to send a register signal to the master node. Final Act. 2-3.
Additionally, the Examiner finds the request for configuration parameters to
be included in the kernel transmission that is received by the worker node
and subsequently communicated to the master node. Final Act. 3.
In response, Appellants contend that the register signal of Wu is not
targeted to local memory, but instead targeted to the master node. App. Br.
5---6. Accordingly, Appellants contend that the worker node of Wu, which
the Examiner has equated to the compute node and boot control module,
does not perform the interception of a request for a configuration parameter
as set forth in claim 1. Id.
The Examiner finds Wu's generation of the register signal and its
subsequent transmission to the master node to be an "interception" of a
request for a configuration parameter. Ans. 10. The Examiner interprets
"interception" of a request to include "relaying/forwarding" a request. Id.
The Examiner further finds that "[i]t is well known in the art[] that different
components in the compute node ( worker node) can intercept/forward/relay
various messages/requests within the node." Ans. 10-11.
However, we find persuasive Appellants' contention that the
Examiner has failed to provide support for this finding. Claim 1 requires a
4
Appeal2018-007227
Application 14/620,365
compute node that executes services and also comprises a boot control
module. The Examiner variously attributes the boot control module of Wu
to either the compute node itself (Final Act. 2-3), or to "well known"
components within the compute node (Ans. 10-11). Neither of these
attributions show that Wu discloses a compute node that executes services
and also comprises a (separate) boot control module as claimed.
Nor do the Examiner's reasoned explanations show Wu to disclose a
register signal (having a request for configuration parameters) that is
formatted to target a local memory of the worker node, and that is
intercepted by a boot control module prior to transmission to the master
(management) node. If the compute node is equated to the boot control
module, then its generation of a request is not reasonably characterized as
"intercepting" that request. If the boot control module is instead a "well
known" component within the compute node of Wu, then Wu has not been
shown to disclose that component, and thus, has not been shown to
anticipate the claimed invention. "[D]ifferences between the prior art
reference and a claimed invention, however slight, invoke the question of
obviousness, not anticipation." Net MoneyIN, Inc. v. VeriSign, Inc., 545
F.3d 1359, 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (emphasis added), citing In re Arkley, 455
F.2d 586, 587 (1972).
Accordingly, the Examiner has not provided factual findings
sufficient to conclude that the disclosure of Wu anticipates claim 1.
Therefore, we agree with Appellants' contention that the Examiner has erred
in rejecting claim 1 as being anticipated by Wu. The Examiner thus has not
set forth a sufficient factual basis supporting the rejection of independent
claim 1, or supporting independent claims 11 and 18 having commensurate
5
Appeal2018-007227
Application 14/620,365
limitations. The anticipation rejection of dependent claims 2--4, 9-10, 12-14
and 19-20 inherit the same deficiencies as the anticipation rejection of the
independent claim and as such the rejection of these claims is also reversed.
In re Fritch, 972 F.2d 1260, 1266 (Fed. Cir. 1992).
The Examiner's rejection of claims 5-7 and 15-17 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 over Wu in view of Jubran likewise relies upon the Examiner's finding
of a boot control module in Wu that performs the abovementioned functions.
Final Act. 7-10. For the reasons discussed, supra, we agree with Appellants
that the Examiner has failed to provide support for this finding.
Furthermore, the Examiner does not point to, nor do we find, teaching of a
boot control module in Jubran that performs the functions set forth in the
system of claim 1 or the method of claim 8. Accordingly, we do not sustain
the Examiner's rejection of claims 5-7 and 15-17 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
DECISION
For the above-described reasons, the Examiner's rejections of claims
1--4, 9-14, and 18-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(l), and claims 5-7 and
15-17 under 35 U.S.C. § 103, are reversed.
REVERSED
6