Ex Parte Banack et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jan 31, 2018

13846332 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 31, 2018)

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.
13/846,332 03/18/2013 Michael BANACK B090 1025
152561 7590 02/02/2018
NDWF/VMW A RF
EXAMINER
99 Almaden Blvd. SHENG, XIN
Suite 710
San Jose, CA 95113 ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2611
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/02/2018 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):
ndwe_docketing@cardinal-ip.com
patent@ndwe.com
ipadmin@vmware.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte MICHAEL BANACK and MARK SHELDON
Appeal 2017-008104
Application 13/846,332
Technology Center 2600
Before JAMES R. HUGHES, ERIC S. FRAHM, and
MATTHEW J. McNEILL, Administrative Patent Judges.
FRAHM, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal 2017-008104
Application 13/846,332
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a rejection of claims
1—20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.
Appellants’ application relates to recovering from a failure of a
graphics processing unit. Spec. 11. Claim 1, reproduced below, is
illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. A computer-implemented method, comprising:
receiving a command from a program to render graphics
data on a display device, wherein commands to render graphics
data are grouped into batches of one or more commands;
transmitting a batch of one or more commands, including
the command from the program, to a graphics processing unit;
transmitting, in response to transmitting the batch and
without receiving a readback request from the program, a
readback request to the graphics processing unit to read back at
least a portion of the graphics data;
receiving a response to the readback request from the
graphics processing unit; and
alerting the program that the command has been
transmitted to the graphics processing unit in response to
receiving the response to the readback request.
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Deering US 2003/0011609 A1 Jan. 16, 2003
Swift US 2008/0303834 A1 Dec. 11, 2008
2
Appeal 2017-008104
Application 13/846,332
Nishimaki
McKenzie
Harris
US 2011/0316863 A1 Dec. 29,2011
US 2013/0155083 A1 Jun. 20,2013
US 2013/0229419 A1 Sep. 5, 2013
Mandl et al., “General-purpose Graphics Processing Units Deliver New
Capabilities to the Embedded Market”
REJECTIONS
The Examiner made the following rejections:
Claims 1, 2, 4, 7—9, 11, 14—16, and 18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Swift, Deering, Harris, and Nishimaki.
Claims 3, 10, 17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Swift, Harris, Nishimaki, Deering, and McKenzie.
Claims 5, 6, 12, 13, 19, and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Swift, Harris, Nishimaki, Deering, and
Mandl.
ANALYSIS
The Examiner finds the combination of Swift, Deering, Harris, and
Nishimaki discloses all the limitations of independent claim 1, including that
Deering teaches “transmitting, . . . without receiving a readback request from
the program, a readback request to the graphics processing unit.” Final Act.
7—8; Ans. 6—7. Appellants contend Deering does not teach transmitting a
readback request “without receiving a readback request from the program”
that sent the command to render graphics, as recited in claim 1. Br. 7—8.
We are persuaded by Appellants’ arguments.
Deering describes a computer system 80 that includes a host CPU 102
and a 3D graphics system 112 comprising multiple graphics boards.
Deering, || 54, 57; Fig. 2A. The host CPU transfers data to, and receives
3
Appeal 2017-008104
Application 13/846,332
data from, the graphics boards over a system bus 104, where a control unit
140 acts as the interface between the graphics boards and the computer
system 80. Deering, || 59, 72.
In one set of embodiments, control unit 140 may receive a GET
FRAME request from host software (e.g. from the user
application and/or from a system software routine that interprets
a higher level command asserted by the user application) via
system bus 104. In response to the GET FRAME request, control
unit 140 may send a FRAME READBACK request to a
designated one of the sample-to-pixel calculation units [in the
graphics boards].
Deering, 178.
We agree with Appellants (see Br. 8) that even if Deering’s “GET
FRAME” request, which causes control unit 140 to send a “FRAME
READBACK” request (see Deering, 178), meets the claim 1 limitation of a
“readback request,” the “GET FRAME” request is not transmitted “without
receiving a readback request from the program.” That is, Deering’s “GET
FRAME” request is not sent without receiving a request from the program
that sent a command to render graphics, as required by claim 1. Rather, as
quoted above, Deering’s “GET FRAME” request is sent by “host software
('Q.g.from the user application and/or from a system software routine that
interprets a higher level command asserted by the user application).”
Deering, 178 (emphases added).
In the Answer, the Examiner asserts that “[e]ven if [Deering’s] user
application is the program rendering graphics data, the GET FRAME request
is not directly from the user application. It is the system software routine
that sends the GET FRAME request.” Ans. 7. However, even though
Deering’s “GET FRAME” request can be sent from system software, the
system software “interprets a higher level command asserted by the user
4
Appeal 2017-008104
Application 13/846,332
application” (Deering, 178) (emphasis added), and thus the request is
initiated by the user application. We find the fact that Deering’s system
software sends a “GET FRAME” request based on a command asserted by
the user application, precludes a finding that Deering’s “GET FRAME”
request is a readback request transmitted “without receiving a readback
request from the program,” as recited in claim 1. We base our finding on an
interpretation of the “without” limitation that is consistent with the
Specification, which provides the following:
The guest graphics driver 220, virtual graphics device 230,
or host graphics driver 245 normally would only transmit a
readback request upon receiving an explicit request for a
readback from an application 215. In embodiments described
herein, however, the guest graphics driver 220, virtual graphics
device 230, or host graphics driver 245 instead initiates and
transmits a readback request for graphics data after each interval
of one or more batches without receiving a readback request
from the application 215.
Spec. 117 (emphases added).
We are, therefore, constrained by the record to find the Examiner
erred in rejecting independent claim 1, independent claims 8 and 15 which
recite commensurate limitations, and dependent claims 2—7, 9-14, and 16—
20.
CONCLUSION
The Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1—20 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a).
5
Appeal 2017-008104
Application 13/846,332
DECISION
We reverse the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1—20.
REVERSED
6