Ex Parte Reid et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Apr 29, 2016

12458287 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 29, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/458,287 0710712009
73459 7590 05/03/2016
NIXON & V ANDERHYE, P,C
901 NORTH GLEBE ROAD, 11 TH FLOOR
ARLINGTON, VA 22203
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Alastair David Reid
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.
JRL-550-1178 6027
EXAMINER
BIRKHIMER, CHRISTOPHER D
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2136
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/03/2016 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):
PTOMAIL@nixonvan.com
pair_nixon@firsttofile.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte ALASTAIR DAVID REID,
KATHERINE ELIZABETH KNEEBONE, JAN GUFFENS,
and LEE DOUGLAS SMITH
Appeal2014-004874
Application 12/458,287
Technology Center 2100
Before JOSEPH L. DIXON, JAMES R. HUGHES, and ERIC S. FRAHM,
Administrative Patent Judges.
HUGHES, ~4dministratfve Patent Jitdge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a Final Rejection of
claims 1, 2, and 4--26. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
The invention relates to monitoring accesses of data at particular
addressable locations in a data processing apparatus (Spec. 1:4--5, 13:7-16).
Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
Appeal2014-004874
Application 12/458,287
1. i~\~ data processing apparatus comprising:
at least one processing element; and
monitoring circuitry for monitoring accesses to a plurality
of addressable locations within said data processing apparatus
that occur between start events and end events, said monitoring
circuitry comprising
an address location store for storing data identifying
said plurality of addressable locations to be monitored and
a monitoring data store,
said monitoring circuitry responsive to detection of
said start event to detect accesses to said plurality of
addressable locations and to store monitoring data relating
to a summary of said detected accesses in said monitoring
data store; and
said monitoring circuitry responsive to detection of
said end event to stop collecting said monitoring data and,
responsive to detection of a flush event, to output said
stored monitoring data and to flush said monitoring data
store, wherein said start event, said end event and said
flush event each comprise one of:
(a) a start of a task or an end of said task
wherein said task is a task to be monitored that is
performed on said at least one processing element,
(b) a memory barrier instruction, ( c) writing to a
control register, ( d) accessing addresses within a
particular region, ( e) an interrupt, ( t) a breakpoint
occurring, (g) a send event instruction, (h) a wait for
event instruction, (i) a load exclusive instruction, (j)
a store exclusive instruction, (k) an atomic memory
operation, ( 1) a memory barrier indication on a bus,
(m) a load exclusive indication on a bus, (n) a store
exclusive indication on a bus, and ( o) an atomic
memory access indication on a bus, wherein said
2
Appeal2014-004874
Application 12/458,287
flush event comprises an internal event generated
by said data processing apparatus.
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Randall
Federici
Shen
Patterson
Matsuzaki
US 6,530,031 Bl
US 6,697 ,925 B 1
US 2005/0097085 Al
US 7,143,251 Bl
EP 1847931 A2
Mar. 4, 2003
Feb.24,2004
May 5, 2005
Nov. 28, 2006
Oct. 24, 2007
Webopedia Computer Dictionary, What is multi-core technology? (Feb. 28,
2008) (http://web.archive.org/web/20080228000102/http://www.webopedia.
com/TERM/M/multi_core_technology.html) (last visited Aug. 1, 2012)
(hereinafter "Webopedia").
REJECTIONS
The Examiner made the following rejections:
Claim 26 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as being directed to
non-statutory subject matter.
Claims 1, 2, 4, 7-12, 14, 15, 17-24, and 26 stand rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Matsuzaki.
Claim 5 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Matsuzaki and Randall.
Claim 6 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Matsuzaki and Patterson.
Claim 13 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Matsuzaki and W ebopedia.
3
Appeal2014-004874
Application 12/458,287
Claim 16 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Matsuzaki and Federici.
Claim 25 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Matsuzaki and Shen.
ANALYSIS
The Non-Statutory Subject Matter Rejection
The Examiner finds claim 26 recites non-statutory subject matter
because it is directed to "[a] computer program product," which is software
per se, and not directed to "the non-transitory computer readable storage
medium" (Final Act. 2-3). "The Examiner suggests the claim be amended
so the non-transitory computer readable storage medium is disclosed first
and contains the computer program product making the claim directed more
to the computer readable storage medium and not the computer program
product" (Final Act. 3). Appellants contend claim 26 recites statutory
subject matter because it recites "a computer program product" in
conjunction with the term "non-transitory" (App. Br. 7-8, Reply Br. 1). We
agree with Appellants.
Claim 26 recites "[a] computer program product stored on a non-
transitory computer readable storage medium." The fact that claim 26
recites the computer program product stored on the medium, as opposed to
the medium storing the computer program product as suggested by the
Examiner (Final Act. 3), does not render the claim non-statutory. Rather,
the important aspect of claim 26 is that it recites a computer program stored
on a computer readable medium, not a computer program in the abstract.
The Patent Office has advised that such claiming is permissible, provided
the claim includes the term "non-transitory" to describe the computer
4
Appeal2014-004874
Application 12/458,287
readable medium so as to avoid claiming a signal per se. David J. Kappos,
Subject Matter Eligibility of Computer Readable Media, 1351 Off. Gaz. Pat.
Office 212 (Feb. 23, 2010). Appellants have followed this guidance and we
find claim 26 is directed to statutory subject matter. 1
The Anticipation Rejection
Regarding claim 1, Appellants contend the Examiner's mapping both
the claimed "data processing apparatus" and "at least one processing
element" onto Matsuzaki' s processor 10, and the claimed "monitoring
circuitry" onto Matsuzaki's performance monitor device 20 within processor
10, is in error (see App. Br. 10-12). Specifically, Appellants argue, this
mapping means Matsuzaki' s performance monitor device would be part of
the processing element it was intended to monitor, i.e., "the monitoring
circuitry is monitoring its own accesses to addressable locations in the data
processing apparatus" (App. Br. 11 ). Appellants assert this interpretation of
iviatsuzaki is contrary to the language of claim l and to the actual operation
of Matsuzaki's invention because claim 1 requires the "monitoring circuitry"
to monitor accesses made by the "at least one processing element," and
Matsuzaki discloses "the performance monitor device 20 ... [is] for
monitoring the performance of the processor core 12" (see id.). Further,
Appellants contend Matsuzaki fails to disclose any of the optional claim
1 Although the Examiner objects to Appellants' Specification for failing to
provide support for the claimed non-transitory computer readable storage
medium (Final Act. 2), the Board only decides appeals drawn to rejections
of claims. We, thus, do not reach the merits of this issue. We do note,
however, that amending a claim "to cover only statutory embodiments ...
by adding the limitation 'non-transitory' .... would typically not raise the
issue of new matter." 1351 Off. Gaz. Pat. Office 212.
5
Appeal2014-004874
Application 12/458,287
elements (a}-(o) (App. Br. 13-17). In particular, with respect to element (f),
Appellants argue
The term "breakpoint" is a term of art well known to those of
ordinary skill in the data processing art: "[A] breakpoint is an
intentional stopping or pausing place in a program, put in place
for debugging purposes. It is also sometimes simply referred to
as a pause." See the Wikipedia definition of "breakpoint" in the
page print out on April 4, 2013 made of record in the Rule 116
amendment. None of the Examiner's examples is relevant to
intentionally stopping or pausing locations in a program. The
timer 22 reaching the predetermined value is not a stopping or
pause point in a program.
(App. Br. 17) (emphasis omitted). We disagree with Appellants.
Matsuzaki' s Figure 3 shows a processor 10 that includes a processor
core 12 and a performance monitor device 20. An "event selector 14
receives program counter (PC) values from the processor core 12 in every
cycle, and then provides these values to the performance monitor device 20
by using a part of the event bus" (Matsuzaki i-f 25). In other words, the
performance monitor device 20 monitors the processor core 12. The
performance monitor device includes an interval timer 22 (Matsuzaki i-f 26).
The interval timer 22 counts a predetermined number of
cycles (for example, 5000 cycles), and outputs its result to the
controller 24 when the number of cycles reaches the
predetermined number. Every time the interval timer 22 reaches
the predetermined number of cycles, the controller 24 outputs
certain performance counter values which are later described of
the performance counter 30 to the trace buffer 40. In addition,
the interval timer 22 initializes the performance counter 30 when
it reaches the predetermined number of cycles.
(Matsuzaki i-f 28).
Appellants' argument that the Examiner errs in finding Matsuzaki' s
performance monitor device monitors itself (see App. Br. 10-12, Reply Br.
6
Appeal2014-004874
Application 12/458,287
1-3) is not persuasive. The Examiner merely states that Matsuzaki's
performance monitor device is one of the processing elements in the
processor, and that nothing in claim 1 precludes the claimed "monitoring
circuitry" from being a processing element (Ans. 4--5). The Examiner does
not state that Matsuzaki' s performance monitor device meets the limitation
of both the "at least one processing element" and the "monitoring circuitry";
rather, Matsuzaki's performance monitor device is merely one of the
processing elements (see Ans. 5). As shown in Matsuzaki's Figure 3, the
processor core 12 is a separate processing element from the performance
monitor device 20. As Appellants recognize, and we agree, "[t]he job of the
monitor 20 in Matsuzaki is to monitor the processor [core] 12 executing
program tasks" (Reply Br. 3). Accordingly, we find Matsuzaki's processor
10, processor core 12, and performance monitor device 20 meet the
respective claim 1 limitations "data processing apparatus," "at least one
processing element," and "monitoring circuitry." We note that claim 1 does
not recite any specific structure for the claimed "monitoring circuitry'' that
distinguishes it from Matsuzaki's performance monitor device 20.
We are also not persuaded by Appellants' argument that Matsuzaki
does not disclose a "start event," "end event," and "flush event" each
comprising "(f) a breakpoint occurring" (App. Br. 17). We find Appellants'
definition that a "breakpoint" is a "an intentional stopping or pausing place
in a program, put in place for debugging purposes" is not persuasive of the
proper construction of that term because the definition is dated after the
earliest priority date of the present invention (see App. Br. 17). Rather, we
agree with the Examiner's broad yet reasonable interpretation of the claim 1
term "breakpoint" as simply "a point of discontinuity, change, or cessation"
(Ans. 6). Even if Appellants' proffered definition did properly antedate the
7
Appeal2014-004874
Application 12/458,287
invention, Appellants have not shown why the definition should be accepted
over the Examiner's construction, particularly in the absence of an explicit
definition in Appellants' Specification. With the Examiner's construction,
we agree with the Examiner (see Final Act. 5---6) and find that Matsuzaki' s
interval timer 22 reaching a predetermined number of cycles, as quoted
above (Matsuzaki i-f 28), meets the limitation of "said start event, said end
event and said flush event each comprise one of: ... ( f) a breakpoint
occurring." Appellants' additional argument that the Examiner improperly
maps Matsuzaki's interval timer 22 reaching a certain value to all three of
the "start event," "end event," and "flush event" (Reply Br. 3--4) is not
persuasive because Appellants' Specification provides "[i]n some
embodiments said start event, said end event and said flush event are a same
event" (Spec. 4:25-26).
We are, therefore, not persuaded the Examiner erred in rejecting claim
1, and claims 2, 4, 7-12, 14, 15, 17-24, and 26 not specifically argued
separately.
The Obviousness Rejections
Appellants have not presented specific arguments for claims 5, 6, 13,
16, and 25, but rather rely on the same arguments as for claim 1 (App. Br.
18-19). As discussed above, those arguments are not persuasive. Therefore,
we must also sustain the rejections of claims 5, 6, 13, 16, and 25.
CONCLUSIONS
Under 35 U.S.C. § 101, the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 26.
Under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b), the Examiner did not err in rejecting claims
1, 2, 4, 7-12, 14, 15, 17-24, and 26.
8
Appeal2014-004874
Application 12/458,287
Under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a), the Examiner did not err in rejecting claims
5, 6, 13, 16, and 25.
DECISION
For the above reasons, the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1, 2,
and 4--26 is affirmed.
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
9