Ex Parte Duluk et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 9, 2016

12900329 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 9, 2016)

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.
12/900,329 10/07/2010 Jerome F. Duluk JR. NVDA/SC-09-0294-US0-US1 7568
102324 7590 12/13/2016
Artegis Law Group, LLP/NVIDIA
7710 Cherry Park Drive Suite T #104
Houston, TX 77095
EXAMINER
RICHER, JONI
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2611
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/13/2016 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):
kcruz @ artegislaw.com
ALGdocketing @ artegislaw.com
mmccauley @ artegislaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte JEROME F. DULUK JR., JOHN CHRISTOPHER COOK,
FRED GRUNER, and GRECORY SCOTT PALMER1
Appeal 2015-004541
Application 12/900,329
Technology Center 2600
Before JOSEPH L. DIXON, KRISTEN L. DROESCH, and
MONICA S. ULLAGADDI, Administrative Patent Judges.
DROESCH, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants seek review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Final
Rejection of claims 1—3, 5—9, 11, 12, 14—16, 18, and 192, all of the pending
claims in the application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
1 Appellants indicate the real party-in-interest is NVIDIA Corp. App. Br. 3
2 Claims 4, 10, 13, 17, and 20 were objected to as dependent upon rejected
base claims, but indicated to be allowable if rewritten in independent form.
Final Act. 10.
Appeal 2015-004541
Application 12/900,329
BACKGROUND
The disclosed invention relates to a system and method of executing a
software method within a graphics processing unit (GPU) that does not
require an exchange of information between a central processing unit (CPU)
and the GPU so that the CPU is not interrupted and the CPU throughput is
not reduced. See Spec. 1 5, Abstract.
Representative claim 1, reproduced from the Claims Appendix of the
Appeal Brief, reads as follows (disputed limitations in italics)'.
1. A method for executing software methods, comprising:
receiving, by a front end unit of a graphics processing unit (GPU), a
firmware method that is configured to perform a function of a
software method;
issuing an interrupt by the front end unit to a processor within the
GPU that is configured to execute the firmware method without
exchanging information with a central processing unit that is
separate from the GPU;
executing the firmware method; and clearing the interrupt by the
processor.
REJECTIONS
Claims 1, 5, 7—9, 11, 12, 14, 18, and 19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(e) as anticipated by Grossman (US 2009/0160867 Al, published June
25, 2009).
Claims 2, 3, 15, and 16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Grossman and Heirich (US 7,788,635 B2, issued Aug. 31,
2010).
Claim 6 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Grossman and Toelle et al. (US 7,659,901 B2, issued Feb. 9, 2010).
2
Appeal 2015-004541
Application 12/900,329
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejection in light of Appellants’
arguments in the Brief, the Answer, and the arguments in the Reply Brief.
We do not agree with Appellants’ arguments. We agree with and adopt as
our own the Examiner’s findings and conclusions of law. We highlight and
address specific findings and arguments below for emphasis.
Appellants argue that Grossman does not disclose “issuing an
interrupt by the front end unit to a processor within the GPU that is
configured to execute the firmware method without exchanging information
with a central processing unit that is separate from the GPU,” as recited in
claim 1, and recited similarly in independent claims 11, and 14. See App.
Br. 9, 11. Appellants assert the aforementioned limitations “require that a
GPU is configured to execute a firmware method without communicating
with a CPU.” Id. at 10. Appellants contend that although Grossman
discloses a scheduler component that is autonomous, Grossman’s scheduler
communicates with the CPU when scheduling contexts for execution. See
id. at 9 (citing Grossman || 16—17). Appellants assert that “Grossman
teaches that the scheduler component is specifically required to report
certain information back to the operating system, and, thus, to the CPU,
during each context switch operation.” Id. (citing Grossman 122).
Similarly, Appellants argue that “Grossman explicitly teaches that the status
information is provided to the CPU for each context switch operation,
meaning that such a communication with the CPU occurs with each context
switch operation.” Id. at 11 (citing Grossman 122). Appellants contend
“the status reports transmitted by the GPU 502 constitute an information
3
Appeal 2015-004541
Application 12/900,329
exchange . . . Reply Br. 6 (citing Grossman || 22, 29); see id. at 7 (citing
Grossman || 22, 29).
We are not persuaded by Appellants’ arguments because they are not
commensurate in scope with the claim limitations. Claim 1, and
independent claims 11 and 14, do not require the GPU to be configured to
execute the firmware method without communicating with the CPU or
without sending or transmitting a report to the CPU. Instead, claim 1, and
independent claims 11 and 14 recite, inter alia, “without exchanging
information.”
Appellants do not direct us to, and we cannot find, an explicit
definition in Appellants’ Specification for the term “exchanging,” such that
the meaning of “exchanging” can be equated with communicating, sending,
and transmitting information. As evidenced by a dictionary definition for
“exchanging,” the ordinary and customary meaning of “exchanging” would
have been understood by one with ordinary skill in the art as: “to part with,
give, or transfer in consideration of something received as an equivalent,”
“to have replaced by other merchandise,” and “to give and receive
reciprocals.” Merriam Webster Online Dictionary,
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/exchanging (last accessed
November 25, 2016). In other words, “exchanging” information means
transferring and receiving reciprocal information. Appellants’ arguments
focus on Grossman’s disclosure of the GPU transmitting or reporting certain
information to the CPU. However, an exchange of information also would
require reciprocal information to be received at Grossman’s GPU from the
CPU. Appellants do not direct us to evidence to demonstrate that Grossman
discloses the GPU receives information from CPU, and thus Appellants do
4
Appeal 2015-004541
Application 12/900,329
not demonstrate that there is an exchange (i.e., reciprocal transfer and
receipt) of information between Grossman’s GPU and CPU.
For these reasons, Appellants do not persuade us of error in the
rejection of independent claims 1,11, and 14, and dependent claims 5, 7—9,
12, 18, and 19 as anticipated by Grossman. Accordingly, we affirm the
Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 5, 7—9, 11, 12, 14, 18, and 19 as
anticipated by Grossman. Appellants do not present separate arguments
addressing dependent claims 2, 3, 6, 15, and 16. See App. Br. 9-12. For
the same reasons as claims 1, 5, 7—9, 11, 12, 14, 18, and 19, we affirm the
Examiner’s rejections of claims 2, 3, 15, and 16 as unpatentable over
Grossman and Heirich, and claim 6 as unpatentable over Grossman and
Toelle.
DECISION
We AFFIRM the rejections of claims 1—3, 5—9, 11, 12, 14—16, 18, and
19.
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
5