Ex Parte Greiner et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

May 16, 2017

13524468 (P.T.A.B. May. 16, 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.
13/524,468 06/15/2012 Dan F. Greiner POU920120126US1 8605
33558 7590 05/18/2017
INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS MACHINES CORPORATION
Margaret A. McNamara
IPLAW DEPARTMENT / Bldg 008-2
2455 SOUTH ROAD - MS P386
POUGHKEEPSIE, NY 12601
EXAMINER
VILLANUEVA, LEANDRO R
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2131
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/18/2017 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):
poiplaw2@us.ibm.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte DAN F. GREINER, ROBERT R. ROGERS,
GUSTAV E. Ill SITTMANN III, and CYNTHIA SITTMANN
Appeal 2016-007229
Application 13/524,468
Technology Center 2100
Before MICHAEL J. STRAUSS, KEVIN C. TROCK, and
AMBER L. HAGY, Administrative Patent Judges.
STRAUSS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal 2016-007229
Application 13/524,468
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a Final Rejection of
claims 1, 3—8, 10-15, and 17—21. Claims 2, 9, and 16 are canceled. We
have jurisdiction over the pending claims under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
THE INVENTION
The claims are directed to comparing and replacing an entry in an
address table and clearing buffer entries corresponding to the replaced entry.
Spec. 11. Claim 1, reproduced below, is representative of the claimed
subject matter:
1. A computer program product for managing a dynamic address
translation (DAT) table, the computer program product
comprising:
a non-transitory computer readable storage medium
having program code embodied therewith, the program code
readable by a computer processor to perform a method
comprising:
determining, by the processor, from an opcode of a
machine executable instruction to be executed, that the
instruction is a compare and replace DAT table entry instruction,
the instruction comprising an R1 field and an R2 field; and
executing, by the processor, the instruction, the executing
comprising:
based on a type field, adding an index value of an odd
register to a value of an even register to form an address of a
second operand, the odd register and even register being an even-
odd register pair designated by the R2 field of the instruction;
obtaining an original second operand from a memory
location specified by the formed address;
comparing a first operand and the obtained original second
operand, the first operand contained in an even-numbered (even
Rl) register of an even-odd register pair designated by the R1
field of the instruction; and
2
Appeal 2016-007229
Application 13/524,468
based on the first operand being equal to the original
second operand:
storing the contents of the odd-numbered (odd Rl) register
of the even-odd register pair designated by the Rl field of the
instruction in the second operand location as the new second
operand; and
selectively clearing all local translation lookaside buffer
(TLB) entries corresponding to entries formed from DAT using
translation table entries based on a translation table entry
designated by a value of the original second operand.
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Siegel US 2005/0273561 A1 Dec. 8,2005
Greiner ’826 US 2007/0260826 A1 Nov. 8, 2007
Greiner’263 US 2011/0314263 A1 Dec. 22,2011
REJECTION
The Examiner rejected claims 1, 3—8, 10-15, and 17—21 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Greiner ’263 in view of Greiner
’826 and Siegel. Final Act. 2—12.
APPELLANTS’ CONTENTIONS
Appellants contend the applied combination of prior art fails to teach or
suggest the subject matter of the independent claims because:
1. Greiner ’263 fails to disclose managing a dynamic address translation
(DAT) including comparing and replacing a DAT table entry. App. Br.
10.
2. The register pairs of Greiner ’263 hold separate operands rather than
portions of a single operand. Id.
3
Appeal 2016-007229
Application 13/524,468
3. Greiner ’826 obtains a replacement operand from a parameter list
rather than from the contents of the odd-numbered register of an even-
odd register pair. App. Br. 10—11.
4. “[N]either of the Greiner references deals with invalidating DAT table
entries or clearing TLB entries based upon those table entries”, such
that the combination of Greiner ’263 and Greiner ’826 with Siegel is
improper. App. Br. 11.
ANALYSIS
Appellants’ contention are not persuasive. We adopt as our own
(1) the findings and reasons set forth by the Examiner in the action from
which this appeal is taken (Final Act. 2—12) and (2) the reasons set forth by
the Examiner in the Examiner’s Answer in response to Appellants’ Appeal
Brief (Ans. 2—5) and concur with the conclusions reached by the Examiner.
We highlight the following for emphasis.
In connection with contention 1, Appellants argue Greiner ’263 only
“make[s] passing references to dynamic address translation (DAT) as well as
to compare-and-swap instructions” but does not disclose the functionality
required by the claims. App. Br. 10 (parenthetical citations omitted). The
Examiner responds by finding “Greiner ’263 teaches supporting Dynamic
Address translation (| [0004]) and the use of segment tables and page tables
to perform the dynamic address translation (| [0007] and 1 [0049]).” Ans.
14.
Appellants’ contention 1 is unpersuasive because, as found by the
Examiner (Ans. 14) and contrary to Appellants’ argument, Greiner ’263
describes the operation of both DAT tables and the associated translation
lookaside buffer (TLB) for caching translations. Furthermore, we note in
4
Appeal 2016-007229
Application 13/524,468
passing and without reliance in arriving at our decision, Appellants admit the
prior art teaches the basic method of updating a DAT table entry and purging
any cached copies of that entry in the TLB, albeit using three individual
steps executed while program execution is suspended. App. Br. 8—9. In
contrast, according to Appellants, “[t]he present invention combines all of
these steps into a single instruction that operates in an atomic manner. With
this feature, an [operating system] no longer has to suspend the execution of
an application program that might be using virtual memory mapped by the
table entries being updated.” App. Br. 9. Thus, Appellants admit the basic
operation of DAT tables and TLBs was known in and taught by the prior art.
In contrast, Appellants provide insufficient evidence to persuade us one
skilled in the art would not have appreciated the steps necessary to manage a
DAT table and compare or replace a DAT table entry.
In connection with contention 2, Appellants argue Greiner ’263’s
registers hold separate operands and, therefore, do not teach obtaining an
operand from a memory location specified by registers of an even-odd
register pair as required by the independent claims. App. Br. 10. The
Examiner responds by finding Greiner ’263’s calculation of an address by
adding a displacement and/or offset value to a based address provides the
same functionality as the claimed even-odd register pair. Ans. 3.
Appellants’ contention 2 is unpersuasive of Examiner error. As found
by the Examiner, Greiner ’263 discloses calculating an address from a base
address, index, and displacement, specified by the B, X, and D fields of an
instruction. Greiner ’263 1 65. Accordingly, under a broad but reasonable
interpretation of an even-odd register pair, Greiner ’263’s addressing scheme
5
Appeal 2016-007229
Application 13/524,468
using address, index and/or displacement fields teaches or suggests the
disputed even-odd register pair.
In connection with contention 3, Appellants argue Greiner ’826
obtains a replacement operand from parameter list 414 rather than from the
contents of the odd-numbered register of an even-odd register pair as
required by the independent claims. App. Br. 10—11. The Examiner
responds by explaining Greiner ’263, not the argued Greiner ’826 reference,
is relied upon for teaching or suggesting the disputed limitation. Ans. 3.
“[T]he Greiner ’826 reference was brought in to teach the concept of
replacing the value of an operand based on comparing a first and second
operand being equal, i.e. a compare and swap, which the Greiner ’263
reference teaches but does not explicitly teach the details of.” Id. The
Examiner concludes it would have been obvious to combine Greiner ’826’s
compare and swap instruction with Greiner ’263’s teaching of even-odd
registers to arrive at the disputed steps of comparing and storing. Id.
Appellants’ contention 3 is also unpersuasive of Examiner error. As
explained by the Examiner, it is the combination of Greiner ’263 and
Greiner ’826, not Greiner ’826 alone, that teaches or suggests the disputed
limitations. Appellants’ argument that Greiner ’826 is deficient fails to
address the Examiner’s findings in connection with Greiner ’263 and, more
particularly, the combination of Greiner ’826 with Greiner ’263. “Non­
obviousness cannot be established by attacking references individually
where the rejection is based upon the teachings of a combination of
references.” In re Merck & Co., Inc., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986)
(citing In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981)).
6
Appeal 2016-007229
Application 13/524,468
In connection with contention 4, Appellants argue the combination of
Greiner ’263 and Greiner ’826 with Siegel is improper because “neither of
the Greiner references deals with invalidating DAT table entries or clearing
TLB entries based upon those table entries.” App. Br. 11. According to
Appellants, “there is nothing in either of [the] two [Greiner] references to
suggest that the second operand might be a DAT table entry, the only
situation in which such a combination [with Siegel] might make sense.” Id.
The Examiner responds by finding, contrary to Appellants’ premise, Greiner
’263 “teaches supporting Dynamic Address translation and the use of
segment tables and page tables to perform the dynamic address translation.”
Ans. 4 (parenthetical citations to reference omitted). The Examiner
concludes modifying the combination of Greiner ’263 and Greiner ’826 to
incorporate the teachings of Siegel would have been obvious to satisfy a
need to “selectively invalidate various sizes of stores and buffers without
affecting [buffers] used for other units of storage.” Ans. 4.
Appellants’ contention 4 is also unpersuasive for the reasons provided
by the Examiner. In contrast to Appellants’ argument, we agree with the
Examiner in finding Greiner ’263 teaches or suggests DAT tables and the
use of TLB cache entries. See discussion supra in connection with
contention 1. Furthermore, we agree with the Examiner in concluding the
combination of Greiner ’263 and Greiner ’826 with Siegel would have been
obvious for the reasons given by the Examiner. See Final Act. 5, Ans. 4. In
particular, in the absence of sufficient evidence the Examiner’s rationale is
erroneous, we find the Examiner has articulated reasoning with rational
underpinnings sufficient to justify the legal conclusion of obviousness. See
KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007) (citing In re Kahn,
7
Appeal 2016-007229
Application 13/524,468
441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006)). In contrast, Appellants fail to provide
persuasive evidence or explanation showing that the Examiner’s asserted
combination is anything other than the combination of familiar elements
yielding no more than predictable results. See KSR, 550 U.S. at 416—17.
Such a combination is itself a sufficient reasoning with rational
underpinning to support a finding of obviousness. Id.
For the reasons discussed supra, we are unpersuaded of Examiner
error. Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of independent claim 1 and, for
the same reasons, the rejection of independent claims 8 and 15 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Greiner ’263, Greiner ’826, and
Siegel,together with the rejection of dependent claims 3—7, 10-14, and 17—
21, which are not argued separately with particularity.
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1, 3—8, 10—15, and
17-21.
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
8