Advanced Micro Devices, Inc.Download PDFPatent Trials and Appeals BoardMay 28, 20202019003232 (P.T.A.B. May. 28, 2020) Copy Citation 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. 15/156,658 05/17/2016 Michael J. Mantor AMD-080006-US-CNT[2] 4186 25310 7590 05/28/2020 VOLPE AND KOENIG, P.C. DEPT. AMD 30 SOUTH 17TH STREET -18TH FLOOR PHILADELPHIA, PA 19103 EXAMINER HOANG, PETER ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2616 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 05/28/2020 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): eoffice@volpe-koenig.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte MICHAEL J. MANTOR, JEFFREY T. BRADY, and ANGEL E. SOCARRAS ____________ Appeal 2019-003232 Application 15/156,658 Technology Center 2600 ____________ Before CAROLYN D. THOMAS, BRADLEY W. BAUMEISTER, and ADAM J. PYONIN, Administrative Patent Judges. THOMAS, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–11. We have jurisdiction over the appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). An Oral Hearing was held on May 15, 2020. We AFFIRM. 1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. Appeal Br. 3. Appeal 2019-003232 Application 15/156,658 2 The present invention relates generally to transferring data to a redundant shader pipe array when at least one defective shader pipe is identified. See Spec., Abstract. Claim 7 is illustrative: 7. A method, implemented in a sequencer, the method comprising: identifying at least one defective shader pipe of a plurality of shader pipes in a shader pipe array; and generating a signal directing a redundant shader switch to transfer data destined for each shader pipe identified as being defective independently to a redundant shader pipe array. Appellant appeals the following rejections: R1. Claims 1–5 and 7–11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Mantor (US 2006/0053188 A1, Mar. 9, 2006), Luick (US 2005/0066148 A1, Mar 24, 2005), and Bastos (US 2008/0094405 A1, Apr. 24, 2008). Final Act. 7–15.; and R2. Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Mantor, Luick, Bastos, and Smith (US 6,785,840 B1, Aug. 31, 2004). Final Act. 15–16. We review the appealed rejections for error based upon the issues identified by Appellant, and in light of the arguments and evidence produced thereon. Ex parte Frye, 94 USPQ2d 1072, 1075 (BPAI 2010) (precedential). ANALYSIS Rejections under § 103(a) Claims 1 and 4–10 Issue 1: Did the Examiner err in finding that Bastos teaches and/or suggests independently transferring data, as set forth in claim 7? Appeal 2019-003232 Application 15/156,658 3 Here, the Examiner admits that “Mantor and Luick do not explicitly teach wherein the transfer of data is performed independently” (see Final Act. 9), but instead relies upon Bastos to disclose this feature. Id. at 9–10. As such, we shall look for error in the Examiner’s interpretation of Bastos. As a preliminary matter of claim construction, we broadly but reasonably construe the claim term “independently” as denoting not relying on anything else. Appellant contends that Bastos’ “distribution of segments occurs the same way (e.g., in a round robin fashion) . . . Accordingly, in Bastos, segments are simply distributed and not independently transferred to a redundant shader array. Accordingly, Bastos does not make up for deficiencies of Mantor and Luick.” Appeal Br. 10–11. The Examiner starts by relying on Luick to teach “in response to receiving the generated signal, transfer the data destined to each shader pipe identified as being defective to the redundant shader pipe array.” Ans. 13 (citing Luick ¶ 15). The Examiner imports Bastos to merely teach “the transfer [of data] is performed independently.” Ans. 13 (citing Bastos Abstract; ¶ 29). Specifically, Bastos discloses: The shader includes a shader distributor that processes rasterized pixel data and then selectively distributes the processed rasterized pixel data to the various shader pipelines, beneficially in a manner that balances workloads. . . . A shader instruction processor (scheduler) programs the individual shader pipelines to perform their intended tasks. Abstract (emphasis added). Beneficially, the shader pipelines are identical, they can be programmed independently, individual shader pipelines can be Appeal 2019-003232 Application 15/156,658 4 disabled, and shader processing operations can be performed even if one or more shader pipelines is disabled. Bastos ¶ 15 (emphasis added). Each shader pipeline 302 can be individually programmed via program information stored in the frame buffer memory 120 to perform mathematical and other processing operations on rasterized pixel data to produce shaded pixel data. . . . Furthermore, such scalability enables shader pipeline 302 redundancies, which, in turn, enables the ability to functionally disable defective shader pipelines 302, while still maintaining the overall operation of the shader 300. Bastos ¶ 29 (emphasis added). In other words, Bastos discloses the ability to selectively distribute data and individually/independently program shader pipelines to perform their intended tasks. As a result, we find unavailing Appellant’s contention that “in Bastos, segments are simply distributed and not independently transferred to a redundant shader array” (see Appeal Br. 11), given the aforementioned teachings that clearly suggest the capability of transferring data “independently.” Issue 2: Does the combination of Mantor, Luick, and Bastos change the principle of operation of Mantor and/or Luick? Appellant contends that “Mantor and Luick are both designed to operate using a simple switching function to shift input data in one direction of a defective ALU or pipeline . . . To add the functionality of Bastos to Mantor and/or Luick’s switch logic . . . would change the basic principle under which the Mantor and/or Luick construction was designed to operate.” Appeal Br. 11–12. We disagree with Appellant. Appeal 2019-003232 Application 15/156,658 5 Firstly, we note that Appellant’s aforementioned argument is another form of a teaching away argument. “If references taken in combination would produce a ‘seemingly inoperative device,’ . . . such references teach away from the combination and thus cannot serve as predicates for a prima facie case of obviousness.” McGinley v. Franklin Sports, Inc., 262 F.3d 1339, 1354 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (citation omitted); see also In re ICON Health & Fitness, Inc., 496 F.3d 1374, 1382 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (“a reference teaches away from a combination when using it in that combination would produce an inoperative result,” but the obviousness analysis must account for “modifications that one skilled in the art would make to a device borrowed from the prior art”). Here, Bastos is merely being relied upon by the Examiner, and we agree, to teach that it was known to “independently” transfer data from one component to another. For example, as noted supra, Bastos teaches independently transferring by at least selectively distributing data and individually and/or independently programming shader pipelines. Furthermore, Appellant has not shown that Mantor and/or Luick, criticizes, discredits, or otherwise discourages selectively distributing data and/or individually/independently programming shader pipelines. Instead, Luick merely teaches “a redundant pipeline is shared by multiple primary pipelines, and in the event that any primary pipeline fails, the redundant pipeline assumes the failing pipeline’s function.” Luick ¶ 15. Luick further discloses different embodiments for how the redundant pipeline assumes such functions, e.g., “[a] pipeline failure causes data to be shifted one position within the array of pipelines, to by-pass the failing pipeline” (Luick ¶ 16); “selection logic controlling the selection between a primary source Appeal 2019-003232 Application 15/156,658 6 and a secondary source of pipeline data is integrated with other selection logic . . . is used for by-passing of certain pipeline logic or registers” (Luick ¶ 17); “it would be theoretically possible to divert the data for the inoperable pipeline directly to the redundant pipeline” (Luick ¶ 53). In other words, Luick describes alternative embodiments for transferring data away from a defective shader pipeline to a redundant pipeline, including selectively distributing data using selection logic, similar to Bastos’ aforementioned teachings, and even directly transferring data to the redundant pipe. Mantor similarly illustrates alternative redundant pipe selection mechanisms. See Mantor Fig. 11. As such, we point out that “[t]he prior art’s mere disclosure of more than one alternative does not constitute a teaching away from any of these alternatives because such disclosure does not criticize, discredit, or otherwise discourage the solution claimed . . .” In re Fulton, 391 F.3d 1195, 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2004). “A reference may be said to teach away when a person of ordinary skill, upon reading the reference . . . would be led in a direction divergent from the path that was taken by the applicant.” In re Haruna, 249 F.3d 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2001). We do not find this to be the situation before this Board. At most it can be argued that Luick shows that “shifting over by one pipeline . . . is believed to have certain advantages.” See Luick ¶ 53. However, we find that being less effective is not a teaching away. “A known or obvious composition does not become patentable simply because it has been described as somewhat inferior to some other product for the same use.” In re Gurley, 27 F.3d 551, 553 (Fed. Cir. 1994). Appeal 2019-003232 Application 15/156,658 7 As such, we find unavailing Appellant’s contention that modifying Luick’s and/or Mantor’s device with Bastos’ selective transferring mechanism would change the principle of operation, given that neither Luick or Mantor discourage the solution claimed. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 7. Appellant’s arguments regarding the Examiner’s rejection of independent claims 1 and 9 rely on the same arguments as for claim 7, and Appellant does not argue separate patentability for the dependent claims, except as noted below. We, therefore, sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1 and 4–10. Claim 2 Issue 3: Did the Examiner err in finding that Luick teaches transferring the data destined for the defective shader pipe without transferring the data destined to all other shader pipes, as set forth in claim 2? Appellant contends that in both Mantor and Luick “when data destined to any defective pipe is shifted one pipe in a particular direction, data destined to all other pipes in that same direction is also shifted.” Appeal Br. 13. In particular, Appellant contends that “neither of these references discloses or suggests . . . transfer the data destined for each shader pipe identified as being defective without transferring the data destined to all other shader pipes . . . not identified as being defective.” Id. The Examiner finds that Luick teaches that “only the defective data of an identified defective pipeline is sent to the redundant pipeline.” Ans. 17. Specifically, Luick discloses “[p]referably, a redundant pipeline is shared by Appeal 2019-003232 Application 15/156,658 8 multiple primary pipelines, and in the event that any primary pipeline fails, the redundant pipeline assumes the failing pipeline’s function.” Luick ¶ 15. Luick’s preferred embodiment describes [a] pipeline failure causes data to be shifted one position within the array of pipelines, to by-pass the failing pipeline. The shift is always one position . . . [i.e.,] if the first pipeline in the array fails and the fifth pipeline redundant, data intended for the first pipeline is shifted to the second pipeline, data intended for the second is shifted to the third, and so forth. Luick ¶ 16. Interestingly, we further note that if Luick’s fourth pipeline fails (instead of the first pipeline) and the fifth pipeline is redundant, then under Bastos’ method the data destined for the defective fourth pipeline would shift directly to the redundant fifth pipeline, i.e., transfer data destined for defective fourth pipeline directly to the redundant pipeline, without transferring the data from non-defective pipelines. Furthermore, as noted supra, Luick explicitly discloses that “it would be theoretically possible to divert the data for the inoperable pipeline directly to the redundant pipeline (in the example above, divert data for pipeline 302 to pipeline 305).” See Luick ¶ 53. In other words, Luick discloses and suggests alternative embodiments whereby data from the defective shader pipe is transferred directly to the redundant pipeline without transferring/ shifting the data destined to all other shader pipes that are not defective. Accordingly, we find unavailing Appellant’s contention that neither reference discloses the argued limitation given the aforementioned disclosure in Luick. We, therefore, sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 2. Appeal 2019-003232 Application 15/156,658 9 Claims 3 and 11 Issue 4: Did the Examiner err in finding that Mantor and/or Luick teaches a horizontal path or a direct path to the redundant shader pipelines, as set forth in claims 3 and 11, respectively? Appellant contends that both Mantor and Luick “are silent with respect to a ‘horizontal path to the redundant shader pipe array’ or a ‘direct path to the redundant shader pipe array.’ . . . the data is shifted rather than transferred via a horizontal or direct path.” Appeal Br. 14; see also Spec. ¶ 28 and Fig. 1. The Examiner finds that Mantor’s Fig. 1 describes shifting logic that shifts in a horizontal direction, i.e., shifting to the left or right. See Final Act. 11; see also Mantor ¶ 20 (“shifting input data for the defective ALU in the first direction to a neighboring ALU”). Additionally, as noted supra, Luick teaches failure causes data to be shifted one position within the array of primary pipelines and a redundant pipeline that are physically adjacent to one another. See Luick ¶ 16. Although Mantor and Luick do not explicitly state that the disclosed data shifts are along a horizontal path, Appellant’s aforementioned contentions fail to persuasively distinguish the combined teachings of Mantor’s Fig.1, which illustrates left/right shifting, and Luick’s pipelines being physically adjacent to one another, from the claimed horizontal path. For example, Appellant’s Specification merely illustrates, in Appellant’s Fig. 1, arrows that point in a left/right direction between the shader pipe array 140 and the redundant shader pipe array 150. This illustration is what Appellant is relying on to support the claimed horizontal path. See Appeal Br. 4 (citing Spec. ¶ 28 and Fig.1). Appellant fails to persuasively Appeal 2019-003232 Application 15/156,658 10 distinguish the disputed claim limitation, read in light of the Specification, from Mantor’s right/left shifts. See Mantor, Fig. 1. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 3 and 11. CONCLUSION The Examiner’s rejections of claims 1–11 as being unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over at least Mantor, Luick, and Bastos is affirmed. In summary: Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 1–5, 7–11 103 Mantor, Luick, Bastos 1–5, 7–11 6 103 Mantor, Luick, Bastos, Smith 6 Overall Outcome 1–11 No period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv). AFFIRMED Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation