Ex Parte Saulters et al

Patent Trials and Appeals BoardMar 27, 2019

13754256 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Mar. 27, 2019)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 13/754,256 01/30/2013 102324 7590 03/29/2019 Artegis Law Group, LLP/NVIDIA 7710 Cherry Park Drive Suite T #104 Houston, TX 77095 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Scott Saulters 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. NVDA1TP100324TW1US 1541 EXAMINER WANG, YUEHAN ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2618 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 03/29/2019 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): kcruz@artegislaw.com ALGdocketing@artegislaw.com j matthews @artegislaw.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte SCOTT SAULTERS, RA TIN KUMAR, and LIEVEN LEROY Appeal2018-004900 Application 13/754,256 Technology Center 2600 Before JEREMY J. CURCURI, BARBARA A. BENOIT, and ADAM J. PYONIN, Administrative Patent Judges. CURCURI, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 134(a) from the Examiner's rejection of claims 1---6, 8-10, 12-17, and 19-21. Final Act. 1. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 6(b ). Claims 1-6, 8-10, 12-17, and 19-21 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) as obvious over Avkarogullari et al. (US 2013/0328890 Al, published Dec. 12, 2013) ("Avkarogullari") and Kumar (US 6,640,268 Bl, issued Oct. 28, 2003). Final Act. 2-14. We reverse. Appeal2018-004900 Application 13/754,256 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants' invention relates to "a method for adaptively adjusting a framerate of a graphic processing unit (GPU), and more particularly, to a method for changing the framerate adjustment." Spec. ,r 2. Claim 1 is illustrative and reproduced below: 1. A method for adjusting a framerate of at least one graphic processing unit ( GPU), comprising the steps of: setting a polling cycle time interval for monitoring the at least one GPU; receiving an execution parameter associated with the at least one GPU; determining that a value of the execution parameter is larger than a first reference value; increasing a sleep time for the at least one GPU based on the value of the execution parameter; adjusting the polling cycle time interval based on a relationship between the value of the execution parameter and the first reference value; determining that the value of the execution parameter has become less than a second reference value, wherein the second reference value is less than the first reference value; and decreasing the sleep time for the at least one GPU based on the value of the execution parameter. PRINCIPLES OF LAW We review the appealed rejections for error based upon the issues identified by Appellants, and in light of the arguments and evidence produced thereon. Ex parte Frye, 94 USPQ2d 1072, 107 5 (BP AI 2010) (precedential). 2 Appeal2018-004900 Application 13/754,256 ANALYSIS The Examiner finds A vkarogullari teaches all limitations of claim 1, except for "setting a polling cycle time interval" and "adjusting the polling cycle time interval based on a relationship between the value of the execution parameter and the first reference value," which the Examiner finds are taught by Kumar. See Final Act. 4--5, 8-9. 1 The Examiner reasons it would have been obvious to combine the teachings of A vkarogullari and Kumar "[to] permit a much more efficient allocation of bandwidth than is available with static or fixed polling schemes in the method for adaptively adjusting a framerate of a graphic processing unit (GPU)." Final Act. 5. In particular, the Examiner maps Avkarogullari's decision block 80 and block 82 (Fig. 4) to claim 1 's "determining that a value of the execution parameter is larger than a first reference value." See Final Act. 4 ( citing Avkarogullari ,r 55). The Examiner explains as follows: "If the actual power exceeds the target power ( decision block 80, 'yes' leg), the duty cycle controller may decrease the duty cycle (i.e. increase the off time) (block 82)." Final Act. 4; see also Avkarogullari Fig. 3 (GPU Power Tracking Controller 49 receives the difference between Actual GPU Power (feedback signal) and Target GPU Power (reference signal) (see Avkarogullari ,r 54)). In particular, the Examiner maps Avkarogullari's decision blocks 102, 106 and block 100 (Fig. 5) to claim 1 's "determining that the value of the execution parameter has become less than a second reference value, wherein the second reference value is less than the first reference value." See Final 1 The claims were amended after the Final Action. Among other amendments to the claims, claim 1 was amended to incorporate the subject matter of claim 7, and claim 7 was canceled. 3 Appeal2018-004900 Application 13/754,256 Act. 8 (citing Avkarogullari ,r,r 61, 62). The Examiner explains as follows: "If neither of the decision blocks 102 and 106 are true ( decision blocks 102 and 106, 'no' legs), the GPU control unit 62 may be configured to transition the GPU 24 to the lower power state (block 100) ... the second threshold is also greater than the third threshold." Final Act. 8; see also Avkarogullari Fig. 3 (GPU control unit 62 operates according to the flowchart of Fig. 5 (see Avkarogullari ,r 57)). According to the Examiner, when GPU 24 (Avkarogullari, Fig. 3) is transitioned to the lower power state (Avkarogullari, block 100, Fig. 5), this affects the Actual GPU Power (Avkarogullari, Fig. 3), causing the duty cycle controller to increase the duty cycle (i.e. decrease the off time) (Avkarogullari, block 86, Fig. 4). See Final Act. 8-9 (citing Avkarogullari ,r 56) ("the duty cycle may be increased up to 100%, or the off time may be zero"); see also Adv. Action 2; Ans. 7-11. Appellants present the following principal argument: A vkarogullari does not teach "determining that the value of the execution parameter has become less than a second reference value, wherein the second reference value is less than the first reference value; and decreasing the sleep time for the at least one GPU based on the value of the execution parameter" as recited in claim 1. See App. Br. 11-14. The best simple explanation of Appellants' principal argument appears in the Reply Brief: Based on [the Examiner's] mappings [for the first "determining" step ("execution parameter" reads on Actual GPU Power, "first reference value" reads on Target GPU Power)], to meet the second "determining" step of the independent claims set forth above, Avkarogullari would have to disclose that (i) some determination is made that the actual GPU power consumed falls 4 Appeal2018-004900 Application 13/754,256 below some second reference value, where that second reference value is less than the target GPU power consumed, and (ii) the sleep time of the GPU is then decreased based on actual GPU power consumed. Importantly, A vkarogullari contains no such teachings. Reply Br. 4; see also App. Br. 12-13 (discussing inconsistent claim mappings). Appellants' arguments persuade us that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1. In reaching our decision, we need not speculate about the interplay between Avkarogullari's GPU Power Tracking Controller 49 (Fig. 3, Fig. 4 (flowchart)) and Avkarogullari's GPU control unit 62 (Fig. 3, Fig. 5 (flowchart)) because the Examiner's error here arises in the way the Examiner maps A vkarogullari to claim 1. In finding A vkarogullari teaches claim 1 's "determining that a value of the execution parameter is larger than a first reference value," the Examiner maps Avkarogullari's Actual GPU Power (Fig. 3) to the recited "execution parameter" and Avkarogullari's Target GPU Power (Fig. 3) to the recited "first reference value." See Final Act. 4. In finding A vkarogullari teaches claim 1 's "determining that the value of the execution parameter has become less than a second reference value, wherein the second reference value is less than the first reference value," the Examiner maps A vkarogullari' s Utilization (Fig. 5) to the recited "execution parameter" and Avkarogullari's Third Threshold (Fig. 5) to the recited "second reference value." See Final Act. 8. These mappings are inconsistent because Avkarogullari's Actual GPU Power (Fig. 3) is not the same thing as Avkarogullari's Utilization (Fig. 5). 5 Appeal2018-004900 Application 13/754,256 See A vkarogullari ,r 24 ("The utilization may refer to the fraction ( or percentage) of the execution interval [that] is actually used by the processor to perform a task assigned to the processor for the execution interval."), ,r 40 ("actual GPU power from a GPU power measurement unit 46"). Accordingly, we are persuaded of Examiner error for the reasons given by Appellants on page 4 of the Reply Brief and quoted above. We, therefore, do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 1. We also do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of claims 2-6, 8-10, 12, 13, and 21, which depend from claim 1. Independent claim 14 recites the same key "determining" limitations as claim 1. The Examiner rejects claim 14 "on similar grounds and rationale as their corresponding limitations" in claim 1. Final Act. 12. We, therefore, do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 14. We also do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of claims 15-1 7 and 19, which depend from claim 14. Independent claim 20 recites the same key "determining" limitations as claim 1. The Examiner rejects claim 20 "on similar grounds and rationale as their corresponding limitations" in claim 1. Final Act. 13. We, therefore, do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 20. ORDER The Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-6, 8-10, 12-17, and 19- 21 is reversed. REVERSED 6