Ex Parte Bybell et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 25, 2018

13834739 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 25, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/834,739 03/15/2013
70426 7590 09/27/2018
IBM AUSTIN IPLA W (DL)
DeLizioLaw
C/0 DELIZIO LAW, PLLC
15201 MASON ROAD, SUITE 1000-312
CYPRESS, TX 77433
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Anthony J. Bybell
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.
A us9201204 nus 1 8135
EXAMINER
YEW,CHIEW
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2131
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/27/2018 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):
USPTO@DELIZIOLA W.COM
USPT02@DELIZI0LA W.COM
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte ANTHONY J. BYBELL, BRADLY G. FREY,
MICHAEL KARL GSCHWIND
(Applicant: International Business Machines Corporation)
Appeal2018-002883
Application 13/834, 73 9 1
Technology Center 2100
Before ERIC B. CHEN, KARA L. SZPONDOWSKI, and
PHILLIP A. BENNETT, Administrative Patent Judges.
BENNETT, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
1 References herein to "Appellant" are to the applicant, International
Business Machines Corporation, also identified as the real party in interest.
App. Br. 1.
Appeal2018-002883
Application 13/834,739
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's final
rejection of claims 1-8, 17-21, 23, and 25. Claims 9-16, 22, and 24 are
cancelled. 2 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims are directed to a hardware-based pre-page walk virtual
address transformation. Claim 1, reproduced below with the key limitations
in italics, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. An apparatus comprising:
a processor; and
a virtual address transformation unit coupled with the
processor, the virtual address transformation unit including a
register, the virtual address transformation unit configured to:
receive an indication of a virtual address;
determine, from the register, a current page size of a
plurality of available page sizes;
determine a bit shift amount based, at least in part, on the
current page size and a base shift amount, the base shift amount
corresponding to a minimum page size; and
perform a bit shift of the virtual address to create a
transformed virtual address, wherein the virtual address is bit
shifted by, at least, the determined bit shift amount.
App. Br. 16 (Claims Appendix).
2 Claims 22 and 24 were cancelled in an amendment filed April 24, 2017,
together with Appellant's Reply Brief. The amendment was entered by the
Examiner in a Supplemental Answer ("Supp. Ans.") issued May 19, 2017.
2
Appeal2018-002883
Application 13/834,739
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Perry
Sakuraba
Branstad
Yamada
Bryg
Belgard
Zahir
Venkataramana
us 3,210,737
us 4,903,234
us 5,555,387
us 6,012,132
US 6,393,544 Bl
US 6,813,699 Bl
US 2003/0018876 Al
US 2006/0067365 Al
REJECTIONS
Oct. 5, 1965
Feb.20, 1990
Sept. 10, 1996
Jan.4,2000
May 21, 2002
Nov. 2, 2004
Jan.23,2003
Mar. 30, 2006
Claims 1, 2, 7, 17, and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as
being unpatentable over Zahir and Bryg. Final Act. 8-15.
Claim 3 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as being
unpatentable over Zahir, Bryg, and Venkataramana. Final Act. 15-16.
Claims 4 and 18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as being
unpatentable over Zahir, Bryg, and Sakuraba. Final Act. 16-18.
Claims 5 and 19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as being
unpatentable over Zahir, Bryg, and Branstad. Final Act. 19-21.
Claim 6 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as being
unpatentable over Zahir, Bryg, Branstad, and Venkataramana. Final
Act. 21-23.
Claims 8 and 21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as being
unpatentable over Zahir, Bryg, and Yamada. Final Act. 23-26.
Claims 23 and 25 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as being
unpatentable over Zahir, Bryg, Perry, and Belgard. Final Act. 29-34.
3
Appeal2018-002883
Application 13/834,739
ISSUE
Has the Examiner erred in finding Zahir and Bryg teach or suggest
"determin[ing] a bit shift amount based, at least in part, on the current page
size and a base shift amount, the base shift amount corresponding to a
minimum page size," as recited in claim 1?
ANALYSIS
In rejecting claim 1, the Examiner relies on the teachings of Zahir and
Bryg. With respect to the disputed limitation, the Examiner finds Zahir
teaches "determin[ing] a bit shift amount based, at least in part, on the
current page size and a base shift amount," but does not teach "the base shift
amount corresponding to a minimum page size." Final Act. 8-11 ( citing
Zahir ,r,r 28-30). The Examiner turns to Bryg to address this deficiency,
finding that it teaches a base shift amount corresponding to a minimum page
size. Final Act. 10 (citing Bryg col. 10, 11. 61---65, col. 11, 11. 19-20, 40-42).
The Examiner finds Zahir and Bryg are analogous art in the field of data
management, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would have combined
their teachings by shifting the PTE (page table entry) size of Zahir by a
minimum page table size as taught by Bryg to arrive at the claimed invention
because "defining a minimum page table size does reduce (to some extent)
the amount of logic required to implement a computer system, reducing
cost." Final Act. 11 (citing Bryg col. 1, 11. 28-30).
Appellant argues the Examiner's findings are not supported by the
evidence. App. Br. 9-11; Reply Br. 1--4. Specifically, Appellant argues "in
order to read on Appellant's claims, the combination of Zahir and Bryg
would need to disclose a bit shift amount that is determined according to two
4
Appeal2018-002883
Application 13/834,739
components, a current page size and a base shift amount that corresponds to
a minimum page size." App. Br. 10. Appellant contends that the
Examiner's mapping of the two prior art references "asserts that different bit
shifts based on individual and unrelated values determined in Zahir and
Bryg correspond to a shift based on both the current page size and a base
amount corresponding to a minimum pages size." Id. Appellant asserts that
Bryg does not cure Zahir' s deficiencies because "rather than suggesting that
a base shift amount be added to a current page size, Bryg merely discloses a
minimum page size as [the] sole determinant of a shift amount." App.
Br. 11. Appellant further contends the Examiner has not provided an
adequate rationale for combining Bryg with Zahir because the substituting
Bryg's "min_pt_size" value for Zahir's PTE size as proposed would "lead to
an entirely different and erroneous value for the PTE virtual address" and
would result in "errors in memory mapping." Reply Br. 3.
We are persuaded by Appellant's arguments. The Examiner maps
Zahir' s page table entry virtual address ("PTE virtual address") to the recited
"bit shift amount," because it is calculated from Zahir's page table entry size
("PTE size"), corresponding to the recited "base shift amount," and Zahir's
region page size ("RRF[VRN].ps") corresponding to the recited "current
page size." Supp. Ans. 4. The Examiner acknowledges that Zahir's PTE
size (i.e., the "base shift amount") is not an amount "corresponding to a
minimum page size" as recited in claim 1. Supp. Ans. 5. The Examiner
finds Bryg's min_pt_size "corresponds to Zahir's PTE size." Id. However,
the Examiner does not adequately explain two different points needed to
show obviousness: ( 1) how Bryg' s min_pt_size, which is described as a
"constant [which] indicates the minimum size (in bytes) of both the long and
5
Appeal2018-002883
Application 13/834,739
short format page tables," is sufficiently similar to Zahir's PTE size that the
min_pt_size could have substituted for the PTE size in Zahir' s system; and
(2) how the min_pt_size, which represents a minimum page table size,
"correspond[s] to a minimum page size." We also agree with Appellant that
the Examiner has not sufficiently explained why modifying the values used
to calculate Zahir's PTE virtual address as proposed would not have resulted
in errors in memory mapping the Zahir memory management system. For
these reasons, we are persuaded the Examiner has erred in rejecting claim 1
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a), and we do not sustain its rejection nor that of
independent claim 1 7 which recites the same limitation. We also do not
sustain the rejections of the remaining dependent claims, which each stand
together with their respective independent claim.
DECISION
We reverse the Examiner's rejection of claims 1-8, 17-21, 23, and 25.
REVERSED
6