Ex Parte McDaniel et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Nov 21, 2013

10643331 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 21, 2013)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
________________

Ex parte SCOTT S. McDANIEL and URI ELZUR1
________________

Appeal 2011-006037
Application 10/643,331
Technology Center 2400
________________

Before JEAN R. HOMERE, JASON V. MORGAN, and
IRVIN E. BRANCH, Administrative Patent Judges.

MORGAN, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

1 Broadcom Corporation is the Real Party in Interest. App. Br. 2.
Appeal 2011-006037
Application 10/643,331

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s Final
Rejection of claims 1–25. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.
Invention
Appellants invented systems and methods that provide one-shot
remote direct memory access (RDMA). Abstract. Specifically, Appellants’
invention provides for one-shot initiation of an RDMA operation in which
data is transferred over an RDMA network. Spec., ¶¶ [0018]–[0021].
Exemplary Claim (Emphases Added)
1. A system for transferring data over a remote direct memory
access (RDMA) network, comprising:
a host comprising a driver and a network interface card
(NIC), the driver being coupled to the NIC,
wherein a one-shot initiation process of an RDMA
operation is performed between the driver and the NIC of the
host, the one-shot initiation process comprising communicating
a single command message comprising:
buffer command information, and
a write command to write a send command.
17. A system for transferring data over a remote direct memory
access (RDMA) network, comprising:
a host comprising a driver and a network interface card
(NIC), the driver being coupled to the NIC,
wherein a one-shot completion process of an RDMA
operation is performed between the driver and the NIC of the
Appeal 2011-006037
Application 10/643,331

3
host, the one-shot completion process comprising
communicating a single completion message comprising:
a send complete indication, and
buffer freeing status information.
Rejections
The Examiner rejects claims 1–5, 10, and 16 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)
as being anticipated by Osborne (U.S. 5,790,804; Aug. 4, 1998). Ans. 3–7.
The Examiner rejects claims 6–9, 11, and 24 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over Osborne and Roach (U.S. 6,304,910 B1; Oct. 16,
2001). Ans. 7–14.
The Examiner rejects claims 12–15 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Osborne, Roach, and Tillier (U.S. 6,421,742 B1; Jul. 16,
2002). Ans. 14–15.
The Examiner rejects claim 17 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Osborne and Pandya (U.S. 7,376,755 B2; May 20, 2008;
filed Jun. 10, 2003; claiming the benefit of Provisional App. No.
60/388,407, filed Jun. 11, 2002). Ans. 16–18.
The Examiner rejects claims 18, 20, 22, and 23 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Osborne, Pandya, and Tillier. Ans. 18–
20.
The Examiner rejects claim 19 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Osborne, Pandya, Tillier, and Roach. Ans. 20–21.
The Examiner rejects claim 21 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Osborne, Pandya, Tillier, and Futral (U.S. 5,991,797;
Nov. 23, 1999). Ans. 21–22.
Appeal 2011-006037
Application 10/643,331

4
The Examiner rejects claim 25 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Osborne, Pandya, and Roach. Ans. 22–26.
ISSUES
1. Did the Examiner err in finding that Osborne discloses, teaches, or
suggests “transferring data over a remote direct memory access (RDMA)
network . . . wherein a one-shot initiation process of an RDMA operation is
performed between the driver and the NIC of the host,” as recited in claim
1?
2. Did the Examiner err in finding that the combination of Osborne
and Pandya teaches or suggests “transferring data over a remote direct
memory access (RDMA) network . . . wherein a one-shot completion
process of an RDMA operation is performed between the driver and the NIC
of the host,” as recited in claim 17?
ANALYSIS
Claims 1–5, 10, and 16
The Examiner finds that Osborne discloses performance of a one-shot
RDMA operation initiation process because Osborne discloses: (1) invoking
a “Send” command 67, which is copied from application memory to a
processor message buffer 62; (2) processing the message content and
sending the message and its content over network 82 for delivery to a remote
receiving host 52; and (3) using direct memory access (DMA) with the
network interface to extract and copy the message to message buffer 74 of
the remote host 52. Ans. 4 (citing Osborne, Figs. 1–2 and col. 7, ll. 18–45).
Appellants contend the Examiner erred because Osborne does not
disclose “wherein a one-shot initiation process of an RDMA operation is
Appeal 2011-006037
Application 10/643,331

5
performed between the driver and the NIC of the host.” App. Br. 12.
Instead, Appellants contend, in Osborne “it is the message data copied/
mapped from the application memory 66 to operating system message
buffers 62 that is sent over network 82 via network interface 84, not the send
command 67 sent between application 58 and operating system 56.” Id.
Appellants further argue that while Osborne merely discloses the use of
“direct memory access (DMA) with the network interface 86 of the
receiving node 52 to extract and copy the message received. . . .” Reply Br.
8. In other words, Appellants argue that sending data over a network, and
then using DMA on the receiving system to extract and copy the message
from the receiving system’s network interface, does not disclose a one-shot
initiation process of an RDMA operation because the use of DMA on a
remote system is not the same as an RDMA operation. We agree with
Appellants.
The Specification provides multiple examples illustrating that an
RDMA operation allows a remote system to directly access memory of the
local system over a network. See, e.g., Spec., Figs. 3, 4, and ¶¶ [0018]–
[0021]. The Examiner finds that in Osborne “the operating system may set
up a Direct Memory Access (DMA) with the network interface 84 to transfer
the message data across network 82 to the memory buffer 74 of the receiving
node 52.” Ans. 29 (citing Osborne, col. 7, ll. 15–45). However, Osborne
merely discloses that usually after a message arrives at the receiver,
operating system 72 directly extracts the message and copies it into message
buffer 74, but “[a]lternatively, in a system with appropriate hardware, the
operating system may set up a direct memory access (DMA) with the
network interface to extract and copy the message to message buffer 74.”
Appeal 2011-006037
Application 10/643,331

6
Osborne, col. 7, ll. 42–45. That is, Osborne discloses that, after the message
has arrived, DMA can be used as an alternative to having the operating
system directly extract and copy the message. Because DMA is used after
the message has already arrived, Osborne does not disclose the use of DMA
to transfer data from a sending node to a receiving node; the data has already
been transferred by the time DMA is used. Therefore, we agree with
Appellants, Reply Br. 8, that the Examiner erred in finding that Osborne
discloses “transferring data over a remote direct memory access (RDMA)
network . . . wherein a one-shot initiation process of an RDMA operation is
performed between the driver and the NIC of the host,” as recited in claim 1.
Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)
rejection of claim 1, or claims 2–5, 10, and 16, contain similar recitations.
Claims 6–9, 11–15, and 24
The Examiner’s findings also do not show that Osborne teaches or
suggests performance of a one-shot RDMA operation initiation process, or
that other cited art cures the noted deficiencies of Osborne. See Ans. 7–15
and 33–38. Accordingly, we also do not sustain the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) rejections of claims 6–9, 11–15, and 24.
Claim 17
Independent claim 17 recites “wherein a one-shot completion process
of an RDMA operation is performed between the driver and the NIC of the
host,” rather than “wherein a one-shot initiation process of an RDMA
operation is performed . . . .” Although claim 17 relates to an RDMA
operation completion process, rather than an RDMA operation initiation
Appeal 2011-006037
Application 10/643,331

7
process, the Examiner relies on Osborne in a similar manner in rejecting
claim 17. Ans. 16–17 (citing Osborne, Figs. 1–2 and col. 7, ll. 37–65).
Appellants argue that the Examiner also erred in relying on Osborne
to teach or suggest a one-shot completion process of an RDMA operation
performed between a driver and an NIC of a host. App. Br. 28. Appellants
acknowledge that Pandya discloses an RDMA write. Id. at 29 (citing
Pandya, Fig. 35). However, Appellants argue that Pandya merely teaches
sending a command completion and sense status once all the data has been
transferred, and does not cure the noted deficiencies of Osborne. App. Br.
29.
The Examiner responds by finding that in Pandya “once the receiving
node has copied all the transmitted message data successfully, it frees its
own buffers and sends a normal completion status . . . and suggesting to the
sending node to free its own buffers.” Ans. 40. However, the Examiner’s
findings do not show that this transmission, even when combined with
Osborne’s use of DMA, teaches or suggests “wherein a one-shot completion
process of an RDMA operation is performed between the driver and the NIC
of the host,” as recited in claim 17. Id. Moreover, the Examiner continues
to erroneously rely on Osborne, not Pandya, to teach or suggest the disputed
recitation. Id. at 16–17 and 39–41. Therefore, we agree with Appellants,
App. Br. 28–32, that the Examiner’s findings do not show that Pandya cures
the noted deficiencies of Osborne.
Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
rejection of claim 17.
Appeal 2011-006037
Application 10/643,331

8
Claims 18–23 and 25
Claims 18–23 and 25 contain recitations similar to the disputed
recitation of claim 17. The Examiner’s findings also do not show that other
cited art cures the noted deficiencies of Osborne and Pandya. See Ans. 18–
26 and 41–48. Accordingly, we also do not sustain the Examiner’s 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) rejections of claims 18–23 and 25.
DECISION
We reverse the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–25.

REVERSED

tj