Ex Parte Yan et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 20, 2017

14569454 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 20, 2017)

United States Patent and Trademark Office
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
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
14/569,454 12/12/2014 Shoumeng Yan 01.P34485C 6658
119829 7590 06/22/2017
Green, Howard, & Mughal LLP
5 Centerpointe Dr.
Suite 400
Lake Oswego, OR 97035
EXAMINER
KRAFT, SHIH-WEI
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2194
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/22/2017 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 @ ghmip .com
inteldocs_docketing @ cpaglobal. com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte SHOUMENG YAN, XIAOCHENG ZHOU, HU CHEN,
YING GAO, SAI LUO, and BRATIN SAHA
Appeal 2017-004141
Application 14/569,454
Technology Center 2100
Before ELENI MANTIS MERCADER, NORMAN H. BEAMER, and
ADAM J. PYONIN, Administrative Patent Judges.
PYONIN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the
Examiner’s Final Rejection of claims 1—11. Final Act. 3. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
Appeal 2017-004141
Application 14/569,454
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
Appellants’ disclosure relates to a computing platform that “include[s]
heterogeneous processors (e.g., CPU and a GPU) to support sharing of
virtual functions between such processors.” Abstract.
Claim 1 is independent, and is reproduced below for reference:
1. A platform comprising:
a central processing unit (CPU) and a graphics processing
unit (GPU); and
a shared virtual memory to be accessible to both the GPU
and CPU, wherein the platform comprises a shared physical
memory to support the shared virtual memory accessible to both
the CPU and GPU,
wherein the platform is to:
store a shared object including a plurality of virtual
functions in the shared virtual memory; and
share at least one of the plurality of virtual functions
between the CPU and the GPU.
The Examiner’s References and Rejections
Claims 1—6 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Wallach (US 2009/0055596 Al; Feb. 26, 2009) and Gil
(US 2004/0187094 Al; Sept. 23, 2004). Final Act. 4.
Claim 7 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Wallach, Gil, and Nadler (US 2003/0070006 Al; Apr. 10,
2003). Final Act. 13.
Claim 8 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Wallach, Gil, and Held (US 5,802,367; Sept. 1, 1998).
Final Act. 15.
2
Appeal 2017-004141
Application 14/569,454
Claims 9—11 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Wallach, Gil, Wright (US 2007/0180197 Al; Aug. 2,
2007), and Poulsen (US 5,812,852; Sept. 22, 1998). Final Act. 17.
ANALYSIS
We review the appealed rejection for error based upon the issues
identified by Appellants and in light of the arguments and evidence
produced thereon. Cf. Ex parte Frye, 94 USPQ2d 1072, 1075 (BPAI
2010) (precedential). We are not persuaded the Examiner erred, and we
adopt as our own the findings and reasons set forth by the Examiner. We
highlight and address specific findings and arguments for emphasis as
follows.
Appellants argue the Examiner erred in rejecting independent claim 1,
because the Examiner’s reason to combine “provides only a bald assertion of
predictable results and a beneficial result of the teachings of Gil. The
rejection provides no reason why the combination of Wallach and Gil would
provide predictable results.” App. Br. 8. Particularly, Appellants contend
the benefits of Gil “may be attained on a single processor system as provided
in Gil” and “do not provide a rationale for advancing from sharing data
between a host processor and a reconfigurable co-processor to sharing a
virtual function of a shared object between a CPU and a GPU as required.”
App. Br. 9.
We are not persuaded of Examiner error. The Examiner finds, and we
agree, that Appellants do “not provide evidence of why such known methods
would not provide predictable results.” Ans. 7; see, e.g., In re Geisler, 116
F.3d 1465, 1470 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (attorney arguments or conclusory
3
Appeal 2017-004141
Application 14/569,454
statements are insufficient to rebut a prima facie case). Similarly,
Appellants do not persuade us that the benefits afforded by Gil’s use of a
single processor would not carry over into a shared environment. The
Examiner finds, and we agree, that in Wallach “the physical memory space
and the virtual memory space are both shared by the heterogeneous
processors” (Ans. 5, quoting Wallach 126) so that, as combined by an
artisan of ordinary skill, “the object and virtual functions of Gil are stored in
the shared physical memory and shared virtual memory of Wallach.” Ans.
5.
The Examiner further finds, and we agree, that “Wallach already
demonstrates an appreciation for ‘optimizing performance of a given
executable’” (Ans. 6, quoting Wallach 123) and that
it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to
replace the “executable 35” of Wallach with an executable that
contains virtual functions as both Wallach and Gil demonstrate
the use of programming languages, such as C++, for the source
code translated into the executable.
Ans. 9, citing Wallach || 25, 72; Gil 9, 10, 12—17. Appellants’ argument
that “the offloading of Wallach does not disclose or render obvious the
claimed sharing but instead teaches away from combining Wallach and Gil”
(Reply Br. 6) is unpersuasive, because Wallach’s offloading does not
discourage investigation into the claimed method, particularly when both
references teach use of the C++ object-oriented programming language.1
See Wallach 172; Gil 190.
1 A reference does not teach away if it merely expresses a general preference
for an alternative invention but does not “criticize, discredit, or otherwise
discourage” investigation into the invention claimed. In re Fulton, 391 F.3d
1195, 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2004).
4
Appeal 2017-004141
Application 14/569,454
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of independent
claim 1, and claims 2—11 not argued separately (see App. Br. 9).
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1—11.
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
5