Ex Parte Beers et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Nov 19, 2018

13976957 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 19, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO.
13/976,957
152398 7590
Alliance IP, LLC - I
20 E. Thomas Rd.
Suite 2200, PMB 96
Phoenix, AZ 85012
FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
06/27/2013 Robert Beers
11/21/2018
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.
P51201US 8143
EXAMINER
YEW,CHIEW
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2131
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
11/21/2018 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):
docket@allianceip.com
della@allianceip.com
eofficeaction@appcoll.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte, ROBERT BEERS, ROBERT G. BLANKENSHIP,
ROBERT J. SAFRANEK, JEFF WILLEY,
ROBERT A. MADDOX, and AARON T. SPINK
Appeal2018-000693
Application 13/976,957 1
Technology Center 2100
Before ROBERT E. NAPPI, CARLL. SILVERMAN, and JOYCE CRAIG,
Administrative Patent Judges.
SILVERMAN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
Final Rejection of claims 37, 39, 41-53, and 55---64, which constitute all
pending claims. App. Br. 4, 12. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b).
We reverse.
1 The real party in interest is identified as Intel Corporation. App. Br. 2.
Appeal2018-000693
Application 13/976,957
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The invention relates to managing conflicts and particularly to the
handling of snoop conflicts on a coherent interconnect. Abstract; Spec.
,r,r 33, 53-56, 58, 59; Fig. 3.
Claim 37, reproduced below, is exemplary of the subject matter on
appeal ( emphasis added):
37. An apparatus comprising:
an agent including protocol layer logic implemented at least in part
in hardware, wherein the protocol layer logic is to:
send a coherence protocol message corresponding to a
particular cache line;
receive a snoop corresponding to the particular cache line,
wherein the snoop comprises a home transaction identifier
corresponding to a resource of a home agent allocated by the home
agent in association with a transaction involving the particular cache
line and the snoop further comprises a requester transaction identifier
corresponding to a resource of a requesting agent in the transaction;
identify a potential conflict involving the particular cache line
based on receipt of the snoop;
send a forward request to the home agent to identify the
potential conflict to the home agent, wherein the forward request
comprises a node identifier of the home agent and the home
transaction identifier;
receive, from the home agent, a forward response to the forward
request, wherein the forward response comprises the home transaction
identifier; and
send a response to the home agent in response to the forward
response.
App. Br. 17 (Claims Appendix).
2
Appeal2018-000693
Application 13/976,957
THE REJECTIONS 2
Claims 37, 39, 41--43, 46--47, and 60-64 are rejected under pre-AIA
35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as being unpatentable over Hum et al. (US 7,721,050 B2;
pub. May 18, 2010) ("Hume'050") in view of Hum et al. (US 2005/0251599
Al; pub. Nov. 10, 2005) ("Hum'599") and Tsien (US 2007/0073856 Al;
pub. Mar. 29, 2007) ("Tsien"). Final Act. 14--29.
Claims 44, 45, 48--49, and 64 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C.
§ I03(a) as being unpatentable over Hum '050, Hum '599, and Van Doren et
al. (US 2005/0160132 Al; pub. Jul. 21, 2005) ("Doren"). Final Act. 30-34.
Claims 50-53 and 55-59 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. §
I03(a) as being unpatentable over Hum '050, Hum '599, Tsien, Batson et al.
(US 7,543,115 Bl; iss. Jun. 2, 2009) ("Batson"), and Van Doren. Final Act.
34--51.
ANALYSIS
Appellants argue the Examiner errs in finding the combination of
Hume '050, Hume'599, and Tsien teaches the independent claim 37
limitations. App. Br. 11-14; Reply Br. 2-3. In particular, Appellants argue
the Examiner errs by relying on an incorrect claim interpretation that the
claimed "home transaction identifier" is the same as a "requestor transaction
identifier" and then applying this incorrect interpretation as the basis for all
the prior art rejections. App. Br. 12 (citing Final Act. 14); see also App. Br.
11-14; Reply Br. 2-3.
2 Rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) and§ 112(b) are withdrawn. Final Act.
2. Appellants state that a terminal disclaimer has been filed, thereby
overcoming the double patenting rejection. We note the record indicates
terminal disclaimer was approved October 25, 2017. Reply Br. 3--4; Final
Act. 5-13.
3
Appeal2018-000693
Application 13/976,957
The Examiner finds "[t]he representative limitations as recited do not
appear to require 'a home transaction identifier' and 'a requester transaction
identifier' be different." Ans. 3. The Examiner finds:
In addition, interpretation of "a home transaction identifier" and "a
requester transaction identifier" being the same appears to be
reasonable interpretation to one of ordinary skill in the art. For example,
in an instance "a home transaction identifier" is a value between O - 5
and "a requester transaction identifier" is also value between O - 5. For
reasons of simplicity, both "a home transaction identifier" and "a
requester transaction identifier" assign values to transactions starting at
0. When a requesting agent's request is issued to a home agent, the
requesting agent's request is assigned "a requester transaction
identifier" of 0. When the home agent issues a snoop request in
response to the requesting agent's request, the snoop request is assigned
"a home transaction identifier" of 0. In this instance, both "a requester
transaction identifier" and "a home transaction identifier" are 0. In other
words, "a transaction identifier" is the same as "a home transaction
identifier". In view of this, an interpretation of" a transaction identifier
is the same as a home transaction identifier" appears to be a reasonable
interpretation to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Id. at 4.
In the Reply Brief, Appellants argue the Examiner's claim
interpretation disregards the plain language of the claims and is inconsistent
with the Specification. Reply Br. 2-3. Appellants argue the claim language
separately sets forth "a home transaction identifier" and "a requester
identifier. Id. at 2. Appellants argue the Specification describes the "home
transaction identifier" and "requester identifier" as separate elements. Id. at
3 (citing Spec. ,r,r 58, 59, 68, 70, 90-92, Table 2, 3).
We are persuaded by Appellants' arguments that the Examiner's
claim interpretation is overbroad, unreasonable, and inconsistent with the
Specification. In particular, the Examiner's claim interpretation that "a
4
Appeal2018-000693
Application 13/976,957
home transaction identifier" and "a requester transaction identifier" being
the same is unreasonably broad and not consistent with the Specification.
See, e.g., Spec. ,r,r 58, 59, 68, 70, 90-92, Table 2, 3. Claim terms in a patent
application are given the broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with
the Specification, as understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. In re
Crish, 393 F.3d 1253, 1256 (Fed. Cir. 2004).
Applying the Examiner's claim interpretation, the Examiner finds the
combination of Hume'599, Hume'050, and Tsien teaches the claim 37
limitations. Final Act. 14--19; Ans. 3-5. In particular, the Examiner finds
Tsien teaches the claim limitations "wherein the snoop comprises a home
transaction identifier corresponding to a resource of a home agent allocated
by the home agent in association with a transaction involving the particular
cache line and the snoop further comprises a requester transaction identifier
corresponding to a resource of a requesting agent in the transaction
(emphasis added)." Final Act. 15-19 (citing Tsien ,r,r 19, 20). The
Examiner finds Tsien teaches a TID (transaction ID) which is dependent, at
least in part, on the home ( destination) node of a transaction:
The cache agents generate transactions corresponding to cache
events. [T]he generation of the transaction IDs is dependent, at least in
part, on the home (i.e. destination) node ID of a transaction in a fashion
that there is a pool of transaction IDs corresponding to each home node
or group of home nodes. The transaction ID, used in conjunction with
the home node ID, uniquely identifies a request from a requestor node
in a system [] where buffer space for transactions is preallocated at the
home node per transaction from each requestor node. [This] creates a
packet that includes the transaction, the first node ID, the TID and a
second node ID, which is the node ID corresponding to the requestor
itself. Tsien teaches transaction ID is related to home resource. As
such, TID is also the HID)
5
Appeal2018-000693
Application 13/976,957
Id. at 18.
Appellants argue the Examiner "has failed to point to any provision in
Tsien discussing any one of a snoop that includes both a home transaction
identifier and a separate requesting transaction identifier" and argue "Tsien
not only fails to distinguish between a home agent transaction ID and a
requester agent transaction ID, but never references the use of two separate
transaction IDs, much less including identifications of these two separate
transaction IDs in snoop requests." App. Br. 13 (citing Tsien ,r,r 19, 20).
According to Appellants, none of the cited references teaches having both
the requester transaction identifier and the home transaction identifier
included in a snoop request. Id.
In the Answer, the Examiner continues to interpret "a requesting
identifier" as the same as "home transaction identifier" and then interprets
the disputed limitation as "a snoop that includes both a requesting
transaction identifier and a requesting identifier wherein the requesting
transaction identifier corresponds to a resource of home agent." Ans. 5. The
Examiner finds "Tsien teaches generating transaction ID that is used by
cache agents (requestors)" and "[t]he transaction ID in conjunction with
home node ID identifies a pool of transactions IDs corresponding to home
node (resource of home agent)." Id. The Examiner then finds "[i]n other
words, Tsien teaches using requestor "transaction ID" to identify a resource
of home agent." Id.
We are persuaded by Appellants' arguments because, in view of the
unreasonably broad claim interpretation, the Examiner presents insufficient
evidence as required for obviousness.
6
Appeal2018-000693
Application 13/976,957
In view of the above, we do not sustain the rejection of independent
claim 37, independent claims 50, 56, and 60 which recite the disputed
limitations, and dependent claims 39, 41--49, 51-53, 55, 57-59, and 61-64.
Cf In re Fritch, 972 F.2d 1260, 1266 (Fed. Cir. 1992) ("[D]ependent claims
are nonobvious if the independent claims from which they depend are
b . ") nono v10us... .
Because our decision with regard to the disputed limitation is
dispositive of the rejections, we do not address additional arguments raised
by Appellants.
DECISION
We reverse the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 37, 39, 41-53,
and 55-64 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
REVERSED
7