Ex Parte Kumar et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 5, 2019

14519639 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 5, 2019)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
14/519,639 10/21/2014 Sailesh Kumar
27189 7590 03/07/2019
PROCOPIO, CORY, HARGREAVES & SAVITCH LLP
525 B STREET
SUITE 2200
SAN DIEGO, CA 92101
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.
l 20126-002CT1 2354
EXAMINER
LIU, TIJNG-JEN
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2473
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/07/2019 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):
docketing@procopio.com
PTONotifications@procopio.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte SAILESH KUMAR, JOJI PHILIP, ERIC NORIGE,
and SUNDARI MITRA
Appeal2018-006927
Application 14/519,639
Technology Center 2400
Before JENNIFER S. BISK, LARRY J. HUME, and
JULIET MITCHELL DIRBA, Administrative Patent Judges.
DIRBA, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL 1
Appellants2 seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the
Examiner's rejection of claims 1-17, which are all claims pending in the
application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We REVERSE.
1 This Decision uses the following abbreviations: "Spec." for the original
specification, filed Oct. 21, 2014, claiming priority to U.S. Application
Serial No. 13/647,557, filed Oct. 9, 2012; "Final Act." for the Final Office
Action, mailed Aug. 23, 2017; "App. Br." for Appellants' Appeal Brief,
filed Jan. 22, 2018; "Ans." for Examiner's Answer, mailed April 24, 2018;
and "Reply Br." for Appellants' Reply Brief, filed June 22, 2018.
2 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Netspeed Systems,
Inc. App. Br. 2.
Appeal2018-006927
Application 14/519,639
BACKGROUND
Appellants' disclosed embodiments and claimed invention relate to a
network on chip (NoC) that includes components connected with channels
of different widths. Abstract; Spec. ,r,r 4, 30.
Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject
matter:
1. A method, comprising:
determining a width for each of a plurality of virtual
channels in a network on chip (NoC) comprising a plurality of
hosts interconnected by a plurality of physical wires to form the
plurality of virtual channels, based on at least one NoC
performance objective for the each of the plurality of virtual
channels or a maximum data flow of the each of the plurality of
virtual channels, such that at least one of the plurality of virtual
channels has a different width than at least another one of the
plurality of virtual channels, the at least one NoC performance
objective comprising at least one of a bandwidth requirement
and a latency requirement; and
providing a message reformatter between connected ones
of the plurality of virtual channels, wherein the provided
message reformatter is configured to adjust flits of one or more
messages between the connected ones of the plurality of virtual
channels.
App. Br. 17 (Claims App'x).
2
Appeal2018-006927
Application 14/519,639
THE REJECTI0N3
Claims 1-17 stand rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as
obvious over Guo4 (US 2013/0051397 Al, published Feb. 28, 2013) and Lea
(US 2013/0148506 Al, published June 13, 2013). Final Act. 9-35.
ANALYSIS
We review the appealed rejections for error based upon the issues
identified by Appellants, and in light of the arguments and evidence
produced thereon. Ex parte Frye, 94 USPQ2d 1072, 1075 (BPAI 2010)
(precedential). To the extent Appellants have not advanced separate,
substantive arguments for particular claims, or other issues, such arguments
are waived. 37 C.F.R. § 4I.37(c)(l)(iv).
We have considered all of Appellants' arguments and any evidence
presented. We highlight and address specific findings and arguments for
emphasis in our analysis below.
Claims 1-17
Appellants argue the references fail to teach or suggest "determining a
width for each of a plurality of virtual channels," as required by claim 1.
The Examiner found Guo teaches this claim limitation. Final Act. 9-12
(citing Guo ,r,r 4, 29, 36, 46, 49, Figs. IA, IB, 2, 4A, 4B, 5, 6). Specifically,
3 The Final Action rejected claims 1-17 on the grounds of nonstatutory
double patenting (Final Act. 5-8), but Appellants filed a terminal disclaimer,
which was accepted, mooting this ground of rejection (id. at 3; App. Br. 7).
4 Although the Final Action, Answer, Appeal Brief, and Reply Brief all
incorrectly refer to the reference as "Kuo," the first named inventor of the
cited reference is "Guo." Accordingly, this Decision refers to the reference
as "Guo."
3
Appeal2018-006927
Application 14/519,639
the Final Action points to Guo' s disclosure of link width conversion and also
quotes passages referencing virtual channels and a virtual channel allocation
module. Id.
Guo describes routers that can be interconnected with channels of
different widths. Guo ,r,r 4, 39, 45. To accommodate these differences, each
router can "perform link width conversion when [the] width of signal wires
connected to an output port is different from [the] width of signal wires
connected to an input port." Id. ,r 4; see id. ,r,r 44--49 (providing details of
link width conversion). Guo also explains that its router uses virtual
channels (VC) to facilitate sharing of the router's physical input and output
ports, but notes these VCs have "no physical input or output connection or
ports." Id. ,r 29. A "virtual channel allocation module" allocates an output
VC to a requesting input VC (and when necessary, arbitrates among multiple
requesting input VCs). Id. ,r,r 36, 40. Finally, Guo identifies two impacts
that link width conversion has on the VCs. Id. ,r,r 44--49. First, although an
input VC can be associated with output ports having different width
conversion ratios, all output ports must be either wider or narrower than the
input port corresponding to that input VC. Id. ,r 46. Second, Guo explains
an input VC's storage should be configured so that it can accommodate the
maximum width conversion ratio. Id. ,r 49.
Appellants argue Guo fails to teach or suggest determining a width of
virtual channels, as required by the claim. App. Br. 8-9, 12. Appellants
submit the Specification distinguishes between physical channels (i.e.,
wires) and virtual channels (id. at 9 (citing Spec. ,r,r 46-50)), and Appellants
argue Guo teaches link width conversion when physical channels have
different widths, but does not determine the width of any virtual channels
4
Appeal2018-006927
Application 14/519,639
(id. at 12). Appellants submit Guo "does not even consider virtual channels
to have widths," much less differing widths. Id. at 11-12 (citing Guo ,r 29).
Appellants argue "the determination of virtual channel widths is not obvious
from the techniques used to determine physical channel widths." Id. at 12.
The Examiner responds Guo discloses a "virtual channel allocation
module that allocates, or determines, shared resources including virtual
channels." Ans. 35 (citing Guo ,r 36, Fig. 2). The Examiner states that Guo,
via link width conversion, "discloses reformatting or converting the size of
links between network devices based on performance requirements." Id.
at 36-37 (citing Guo ,r 47). From this, the Examiner concludes Guo teaches
"determining a width for each of the plurality of virtual channels." Id. at 37.
Appellants reply "none of the sections cited by the Examiner are
directed to any sort of width determination or sizing of widths of the VCs."
Reply Br. 3. Appellants explain Guo' s virtual channel allocator does not
teach or suggest the claim limitation because it "is an arbiter that matches
output VCs to input VCs." Id. at 4 (citing Guo ,r 40). Finally, Appellants
state: "it is unclear from the disclosure of [Guo] whether the virtual
channels 410,415,420 or 440,445 of FIG. 4 of [Guo] have the same widths,
have different widths, and in what circumstances would the width be the
same or different." Id. at 5.
We agree with Appellants that the Examiner did not sufficiently
explain how Guo teaches or suggests the disputed claim limitation. The
Examiner pointed to Guo' s disclosure of virtual channels and Guo' s
disclosure of link width conversion, but did not explain how either, alone or
in combination, teaches or suggests determining the width of virtual
channels. Final Act. 9-12; Ans. 34--37. At best, the Examiner has identified
5
Appeal2018-006927
Application 14/519,639
"determining a width" and "determining a virtual channel" as separate
concepts in the prior art reference, but has not provided a rationale to
combine these concepts as required by the claim. See Transocean Offshore
Deepwater Drilling, Inc. v. Maersk Contractors USA, Inc., 617 F.3d 1296,
1303---04 (Fed. Cir. 2010) ("[I]t is not enough to simply show that the [prior
art] references disclose the claim limitations."). Indeed, the Examiner's
Answer does not provide a clear response to Appellants' arguments that the
cited portions of Guo make no mention of the width of virtual channels.
App. Br. 11-12; Ans. 35-38, 50---51.
Moreover, we see nothing in the cited portions of Guo that teaches or
suggests the required limitations. Guo' s link width conversion considers the
width of physical links, not the width of a virtual channel. Guo ,r,r 4, 44--45.
Although the width conversion does have an impact on virtual channel
management, we could find no teaching in Guo relating to determining the
width of any virtual channel. See id. ,r,r 44--49. The Examiner also pointed
to Guo' s virtual channel allocation module 215, but this component assigns
virtual channels to requesting resources. Id. ,r,r 36, 40. Guo does not teach
that this module determines a virtual channel's width (id.), and the Examiner
has not explained how such a width determination is suggested by Guo' s
disclosure.
Finally, in the Answer, the Examiner asserts, without explanation,
"the 'multiple' input or output VC is the width of input or output VC."
Ans. 45--46 (citing Guo ,r 4). In other words, it appears the Examiner
concludes the number of virtual channels teaches the "width" of a virtual
channel. Appellant responds that one skilled in the art would not understand
the number of VCs to disclose or suggest the width of the virtual channel.
6
Appeal2018-006927
Application 14/519,639
Reply Br. 6-7. We are persuaded by Appellants' argument. The Examiner
fails to provide (nor can we find from our review) any support in the
Specification for interpreting a "width" of a virtual channel as the number of
virtual channels associated with a given port. See Spec. ,r,r 4 7 ( describing
"width" in terms of number of bits), 49 ( distinguishing width, Si, from
number of channels, n); see also id. ,r,r 46-49, Fig. 8. ( describing
determining a width of a virtual channel). 5
Therefore, based upon the findings above, on this record, we are
persuaded of error in the Examiner's reliance on the cited prior art
combination to teach or suggest the disputed limitation of claim 1, and we
find error in the Examiner's resulting legal conclusion of obviousness.
Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner's obviousness rejection of
independent claim 1. For independent claims 7 and 13, Appellants rely on
the same arguments made with respect to claim 1. App. Br. 7, 13. Because
these independent claims recite the disputed limitation in commensurate
form, we are persuaded of error in the Examiner's conclusion of obviousness
of these claims for the reasons articulated above. Thus, we do not sustain
the Examiner's obviousness rejection of independent claims 7 and 13.
Dependent claims 2-6, 8-12, and 14--17 stand with their respective
independent claim.
DECISION
We reverse the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-17.
REVERSED
5 We have not considered, and do not decide, whether Appellants'
disclosure of determining a width of a virtual channel is sufficient to satisfy
the written description and enablement requirements of 35 U.S.C. § 112.
7