Ex Parte Mitran et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 30, 2016

11536047 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 30, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
111536,047 09/28/2006
46429 7590 07/05/2016
CANTOR COLBURN LLP-IBM POUGHKEEPSIE
20 Church Street
22nd Floor
Hartford, CT 06103
Marcel Mitran
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.
POU920060219US 1 8456
EXAMINER
HEBERT, THEODORE E
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2199
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/05/2016 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):
usptopatentmail@cantorcolbum.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte MARCEL MITRAN, VIJA Y SUNDARESAN, and ALEXANDER
V ASEILEVSKIY
Appeal2015-000788
Application 11/536,047
Technology Center 2100
Before ROBERT E. NAPPI, CARLA M. KRIVAK, and
JEFFREY A. STEPHENS, Administrative Patent Judges.
KRIVAK, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a Final Rejection of
claims 1, 2, 4, 6-9, 11, 13-16, 18, and 20. 1 We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.
1 Claims 3, 5, 10, 12, 17, and 19 have been canceled.
Appeal2015-000788
Application 11/536,047
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants' invention is directed to "selective retrieval of expressions
from memory" by "scanning code for expressions that can be effectively
accessed directly from highly cached memory without needing to be loaded
into a register" (Title; Abstract).
Independent claim 1, reproduced below, is exemplary of the subject
matter on appeal.
1. A method for selectively retrieving expressions from
memory during compilation, comprising:
scanning code for expressions that can be effectively
accessed from highly cached memory without being loaded into
registers, wherein scanning the code includes:
creating a bit vector to represent a plurality of
expressions in a code region;
initializing bits of the bit vector as set such that the
expressions in the code region are initially marked as
candidates for retrieval from the highly cached memory;
determining whether a first expression of the
expressions in the code region is modified by the code;
resetting a bit associated with the first expression,
of the bit vector responsive to determining that the first
expression is modified by the code; and
traversing the code region, looking for uses of
expressions for which the bits of the bit vector associated
with the expressions in the code region have not been
reset; and
retrieving the expressions for which the bits have not
been reset, that can be effectively accessed directly from the
highly cached memory rather than loading the expressions for
which the bits have not been reset into the registers.
REFERENCES and REJECTIONS
The Examiner rejected claims 1, 2, 4, 6, 8, 9, 11, 13, 15, 16, and 18
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based upon the teachings of Agaram (US
2
Appeal2015-000788
Application 11/536,047
2005/0132139 Al; June 16, 2005), Bhansali (US 2006/0059474 Al; Mar.
16, 2006), and Tyson ("A Modified Approach to Data Cache Management,"
IEEE 1072--4451/95;(1995)).
The Examiner rejected claims 7, 14, and 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
based upon the teachings of Agaram, Bhansali, Tyson, and Wall ("Global
Register Allocation at Link Time," Western Research Lab (1986)).
ANALYSIS
With respect to claim 1, the Examiner finds Tyson teaches
determining whether an expression is modified by code because "the
claimed term 'modified,' under the broadest reasonable interpretation when
read in light of the specification, is taught by Tyson's disclosure of
determining whether an instruction has been utilized within the code" (Ans.
4; Final Act. 2, 3, 5 (citing Tyson p. 95, section 4)). We do not agree.
We agree with Appellants that Tyson's utilizing or reading an
expression within code does not teach or suggest the expression is modified
by the code as required in claim 1 (App. Br. 10, 11 ). Appellants contend the
Examiner's interpretation of the claimed "determining whether a first
expression ... is modified by the code" (emphasis added) as corresponding
to Tyson's determining the expression is utilized in the code is incorrect
because the claimed determining "does not hinge on whether the expressions
are used[; r]ather, it hinges on how the expressions are used in the code"
(Reply Br. 2, 4 (citing Spec. i-fi-f 12, 28-30)). We agree with Appellants and
conclude the Examiner's claim interpretation with respect to the claimed
determining is overly broad, when properly construed in view of Appellants'
3
Appeal2015-000788
Application 11/536,047
disclosure, which requires a determination based on the expression's use in
the code.2
The Examiner has not shown that the additional teachings of Agaram,
Bhansali, and Wall make up for the above-noted deficiencies of Tyson.
Absent findings that Tyson, Agaram, Bhansali, or Wall teaches the claimed
determining whether an expression is modified by the code and resetting a
bit responsive to the determining, we do not sustain the Examiner's rejection
of independent claim 1 and claims 2, 4, 6, and 7 dependent therefrom. We
also do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of independent claims 8 and 15,
argued for substantially the same reasons as claim 1, and claims 9, 11, 13,
14, 16, 18, and 20 dependent therefrom (App. Br. 12, 13). We do not address
Appellants' remaining arguments because this issue is dispositive with
respect to all claims on appeal.
DECISION
The Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1, 2, 4, 6-9, 11, 13-16, 18,
and 20 is reversed.
REVERSED
2 Appellants' Specification provides "the code is scanned for expressions
that can be effectively accessed from highly cached memory, e.g.,
expressions that are not modified by the rest of the code. This involves
examining the use of the expression . ... If the use of the expression requires
that the expression be loaded into a register, the bit corresponding to that
expression is seen as reset. ... If no use of the expression caused the bit to
be reset, then unspilling may be performed ... "(Spec. i-fi-129, 30 (emphasis
added)).
4