Ex Parte Shpeisman et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jul 12, 2018

12344144 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 12, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
12/344,144 12/24/2008 Tatiana Shpeisman
73486 7590 07/16/2018
Barnes & Thornburg LLP (Intel)
11 S. Meridian Steet
Indianapolis, IN 46204
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.
P27443/45631-220457 5673
EXAMINER
LINDLOF,JOHNM
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2183
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/16/2018 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):
Inteldocs _ docketing@cpaglobal.com
INdocket@btlaw.com
inteldocket@btlaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Exparte TATIANA SHPEISMAN, ALI-REZA
ADL-TABATABAI, and VIJAYMENON
Appeal 2017-011789
Application 12/344, 144
Technology Center 2100
Before CAROLYN D. THOMAS, ADAM J. PYONIN, and
MICHAEL M. BARRY, Administrative Patent Judges.
BARRY, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants 1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection2 of
claims 1, 3-11, 13-22, and 24--32, which are all the pending claims. We
have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM-IN-PART.
1 Appellants identify Intel Corp. as the real party in interest. App. Br. 2.
2 We herein refer to the: Specification, filed Dec. 24, 2008 ("Spec."); Final
Office Action, mailed July 5, 2016 ("Final Act."); Appeal Brief, filed Mar.
20, 2017 ("App. Br."); Examiner's Answer, mailed July 27, 2017 ("Ans.");
and Reply Brief, filed Sept. 27, 2017 ("Reply Br.").
Appeal 2017-011789
Application 12/344, 144
Introduction
Appellants' invention for "Optimizing Quiescence in a Software
Transactional Memory (STM) System" (Title) "relates to the field of
processor execution and, in particular, to execution of groups of
instructions" Spec. ,r 1 (Field).
Claims 1, 14, 22, 27, and 32 are independent. Claim 1 is
representative of the claims on appeal, reproduced here with a disputed
limitation in italics:
1. One or more non-transitory computer-readable
storage media including program code which, when executed
by a machine, causes the machine to perform the operations of:
determining, by executing compiler code prior to
beginning execution of a first transaction, the first transaction
comprises an ordering transaction that includes a potentially
conflicting access to non-transactional data, wherein the first
transaction comprises a transactional memory transaction that
includes a grouping of code to be executed as a group, wherein
the non-transactional data comprises data accessed by code
executed outside of any transactional memory transaction, and
wherein the potentially conflicting access to the non-
transactional data is observable by a non-transactional memory
access performed by code executed outside of any transactional
memory transaction;
determining, by executing the compiler code prior to
beginning execution of a second transaction, the second
transaction includes a non-ordering transaction that does not
access non-transactional data or non-conflictingly accesses non-
transactional data, wherein the second transaction comprises a
transactional memory transaction that includes a grouping of
code to be executed as a group, and wherein the non-
transactional data comprises data accessed by code executed
outside of any transactional memory transaction;
beginning execution of the first transaction and the
second transaction; and
2
Appeal 2017-011789
Application 12/344, 144
committing a third transaction, wherein the third
transaction comprises a transactional memory transaction that
includes a grouping of code to be executed as a group, and
wherein the third transaction is subsequent in a sequential order
to the first transaction and the second transaction, and wherein
committing the third transaction comprises:
performing quiescence of the third transaction
upon the first transaction in response to determining the
first transaction includes an ordering transaction,
wherein the third transaction does not include a data
conflict with the first transaction, and wherein
performing quiescence of the third transaction upon the
first transaction comprises waiting for the first
transaction to stabilize; and
eliding quiescence of the third transaction upon the
second transaction in response to determining the second
transaction includes a non-ordering transaction.
App. Br. 22-23 (Claims App'x).
Rejections
Claims 1, 3---6, 13, 14, 17-22, 24--27, and 29-32 stand rejected under
pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as unpatentable over Ramadan et al.,
Dependence-Aware Transactional Memory for Increased Concurrency,
PROCEEDINGS OF THE 41 ST ANNUAL IEEE/ ACM lNT'L SYMPOSIUM ON
MICROARCHITECTURE 246-257 (2008) ["Ramadan"]; Kumar et al., Hybrid
Transactional Memory, PROCEEDINGS OF THE ELEVENTH ACM SIGPLAN
SYMPOSIUM ON PRINCIPLES AND PRACTICE OF PARALLEL PROGRAMMING
209-220 (2006) ["Kumar"]; and Ziegler (US 2004/0044739 Al; Mar. 4,
2004). Final Act. 2-7.
Claims 7-11 stand rejected under§ I03(a) as unpatentable over
Ramadan, Kumar, Ziegler, and Lev et al., (US 2008/0256074 Al; Oct. 16,
2008; hereinafter "Lev"). Final Act. 7-10.
3
Appeal 2017-011789
Application 12/344, 144
Claims 15, 16, and 28 stand rejected under§ 103(a) as unpatentable
over Ramadan, Kumar, Ziegler, Lev, and Detlefs et al., (US 2008/0256073
A 1; Oct. 16, 2008; hereinafter "Detlefs"). Final Act. 10-11.
ANALYSIS
The Examiner determines the combination of Ramadan and Kumar
teaches, inter alia, claim 1 's disputed limitation of "performing quiescence
of [a] third transaction upon [a] first transaction in response to determining
the first transaction includes an ordering transaction, wherein the third
transaction does not include a data conflict with the first transaction." Final
Act. 3-5 (citing Ramadan 251; Kumar§§ 2.3, 2.4) (relying on Ramadan's
teachings for quiescence, and on Kumar for teaching a "third transaction
[that] does not include a data conflict with the first transaction").
Appellants argue that, regardless of Ramadan's and Kumar's
individual teachings, ordinarily skilled artisans would not have understood
the combination to teach or suggest performing the recited quiescence of a
third transaction under the condition "wherein the third transaction does not
include a data conflict with the first transaction." See App. Br. 9-16; Reply
Br. 2-5. Appellants' argument is persuasive.
The Examiner finds an ordinarily skilled artisan would have been
motivated to modify Ramadan's teachings for performing quiescence as
necessary to perform the disputed limitation based on Kumar for the purpose
of "reduction of deadlocks" ( which arise, in the vernacular of the claim,
from "data conflicts"). Final Act. 5. The Examiner reasons that because
"Ramadan and Kumar both express a desire to avoid/reduce deadlocks,"
ordinarily skilled artisans "would have recognized the feasibility of
combining" their teachings. Ans. 3. As Appellants argue supra, however,
4
Appeal 2017-011789
Application 12/344, 144
and we agree, the Examiner has not shown a causal link in the combined
teachings of the references between performing quiescence of the third
transaction and the third transaction not including a data conflict. See Reply
Br. 4; see also App. Br. 13-14 (citing Ramadan 249-50). Specifically, this
issue turns on whether the Examiner has shown that the cited combination of
references provides a nexus between performing quiescence of the third
transaction and the requirement that the third transaction does not include a
data conflict with the first transaction. We find no such nexus. Even if
Kumar discloses a third transaction that does not include a data conflict with
the first transaction, as proffered by the Examiner, the Examiner fails to
show a causal link between this third transaction and performing quiescence
of the same. In other words, the Examiner errs by identifying isolated
teachings from Ramadan and Kumar and mapping them to the disputed
limitation.
Thus, we do not sustain the rejection of claim 1. Because there is no
finding in the rejection of the dependent claims that cures this issue, we also,
therefore, do not sustain the rejections of the dependent claims 3-11 and 13.
The Examiner summarily rejects independent claims 14, 22, 27, and
32 by reference to claim 1. Final Act. 7 (stating they "are rejected for
reasons corresponding to those given"). Appellants: (a) dispute the
propriety of the rejection-by-reference, contending the limitations recited in
claims 14, 22, 27, and 32 differ substantively from the limitations recited in
claim 1; and (b) submit, arguendo, that Appellants' arguments for claim 1
can apply by reference with equal force for claims 14, 22, 27, and 32. See
App. Br. 16-21.
5
Appeal 2017-011789
Application 12/344, 144
On the record before us, in view of the Examiner's rejection by
reference to claim 1 and our determination of error in the rejection of claim
1 as discussed supra, we do not sustain the rejection of claims 14, 22, and
27, each of which includes a requirement analogous to the disputed
limitation of claim 1. We also, therefore, do not sustain the rejections of the
dependent claims 15-21, 24--26, and 28-31.
Appellants argue the Examiner errs in rejecting claim 32 on the same
basis as claim 1, contending that claim 32 is structured quite differently from
claim 1 and that "claim 32 recites 'selectively applying quiescence to the
transactional memory transaction based on whether the transactional
memory transaction is an ordering transaction or a non-ordering transaction,'
while claim 1 does not include an element of the claim that is structured
substantially similar to that element of claim 32." App. Br. 20; see also
Reply Br. 7. Appellants' argument for claim 32 is unpersuasive.
Our analysis for claim 1, supra, is inapplicable to claim 32, which
does not recite a limitation analogous to the disputed limitation of claim 1.
For claim 32, the Examiner finds Ramadan teaches determining whether
transactions are ordering or non-ordering and then either performing
quiescence on the ordering transaction or eliding quiescence on the non-
ordering transaction. See Final Act. 3. The Examiner further finds that
Ramadan's teaching of performing and eliding quiescence teaches claim
32's requirement for selectively applying quiescence. See Ans. 5 (citing
Ramadan 250-53). Appellants' argument does not persuasively explain how
or why the Examiner errs in finding Ramadan teaches or suggests the
"selectively applying quiescence" limitation of claim 32. Accordingly, we
sustain the rejection of claim 32.
6
Appeal 2017-011789
Application 12/344, 144
DECISION
For the above reasons, we reverse the rejections of claims 1, 3-11,
13-22, and 24--31 and affirm the rejection of claim 32.
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-IN-PART
7