Ex Parte Riley

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Sep 10, 2012

11116008 (B.P.A.I. Sep. 10, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
________________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
________________

Ex parte DWIGHT D. RILEY
________________

Appeal 2010-004781
Application 11/116,008
Technology Center 2400
________________

Before ALLEN R. MacDONALD, ERIC S. FRAHM, and
JASON V. MORGAN, Administrative Patent Judges.

MORGAN, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2010-004781
Application 11/116,008

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s final
rejection of claim 21. Claims 2, 3, 17, 22, and 23 are canceled. App. Br. 6.
The Examiner has withdrawn the provisional double patenting rejections of
claim 1, the 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph and second paragraph,
rejections of claims 1, 4 – 16, and 18 – 21, and the 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
rejections of claims 1, 4 – 11, 13 – 16, 18 – 20, and 24. Ans. 2 – 4. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
Invention
The invention is directed to a method for remote direct memory
access over a network switch fabric in which data is formatted as one or
more remote direct memory access (RDMA) protocol messages that are
routed across the network switch fabric. See Abstract.
Exemplary Claim
21. A method, comprising:
gathering data transfer information comprising a network
identifier of a remote node, a local data buffer location, and
data transfer type information;
converting the network identifier into a corresponding
hierarchical bus end-device identifier;
mapping a remote data buffer with a memory space of
the remote node to a memory space of a local node;
providing transfer parameters to a direct memory access
(DMA) controller, the transfer parameters comprising the
memory mapped remote data buffer location, the local data
buffer location, and the data transfer type;
Appeal 2010-004781
Application 11/116,008

3
transferring data across a network switch fabric using the
DMA controller, the transferring controlled by the transfer
parameters provided, and the network switch fabric comprising
a hierarchical bus, the data passed along a first path constrained
within a hierarchy of the hierarchical bus;
routing the data as it is transferred across the network
switch fabric, the routing based on the hierarchical bus end-
device identifier;
formatting the data as one or more remote DMA (RDMA)
protocol messages; and
transferring additional data across said network via an
alternate path, said data transferred via a second path at least
part of which is not constrained within the hierarchy of the
hierarchical bus;
wherein the data is formatted while said data is
transferred.
(Emphases added).
Rejection
The Examiner rejects claim 21 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Pandya (US 2004/0037299 A1; Feb. 26, 2004), McAlpine
(US 2002/0141427 A1; Oct. 3, 2002), and Feeney (US 6,072,781; Jun. 6,
2000). Ans. 4 – 5; Fin. Rej. 8, 9, 12, and 13.
ISSUE
Did the Examiner err in finding that the combination of Pandya,
McAlpine, and Feeney teaches or suggests “formatting the data as one or
more remote DMA (RDMA) protocol messages” and “wherein the data is
formatted while said data is transferred,” as recited in claim 21?
Appeal 2010-004781
Application 11/116,008

4
ANALYSIS
The Examiner finds that Pandya, which discloses an RDMA engine
that interprets remote direct memory access instructions for storage or
network data transfers that are implemented using an RDMA mechanism,
teaches formatting data as RDMA messages as the data is transferred. See
Ans. 4 and 7 – 8 (citing, e.g., Pandya ¶ [0121] and Fig. 24). Specifically, the
Examiner finds that Pandya’s RDMA Engine block creates RDMA headers
to be layered around data, thus formatting the data as RDMA protocol
messages as the data is transferred. See id.
Appellant contends that the Examiner erred because the Specification
distinguishes between the terms “formatting” and “encapsulating.” See App.
Br. 18 (citing Spec. 11, ll. 3 – 20). However, we agree with the Examiner
that a reasonably broad meaning of “formatting” includes layering (i.e.,
encapsulation). See Ans. 6 – 8. This meaning is consistent with the
Specification, which discloses that data formatted into RDMA messages
may include RDMA headers (i.e., an RDMA header layer). See Spec.
¶ [0039].
Appellant further argues that Pandya makes no reference to formatting
RDMA headers during the transfer. See Reply Br. 2. However, Pandya’s
RDMA engine not only creates RDMA headers to be layered around data, it
also passes messages and instructions and performs large block data
transfers without substantial host intervention. See Pandya ¶ [0121]. That is,
Pandya teaches an RDMA engine that formats data into RDMA messages
and transfers the data by transferring the messages. Thus, Pandya teaches or
suggests that data sent to the Pandya’s RDMA engine for transfer as RDMA
messages would be data that is formatted as one or more RDMA protocol
Appeal 2010-004781
Application 11/116,008

5
messages while the data is transferred (i.e., while the data is in the RDMA
engine). Therefore, we agree with the Examiner that Pandya teaches or
suggests “formatting the data as one or more remote DMA (RDMA)
protocol messages” and “wherein the data is formatted while said data is
transferred,” as recited in claim 21. See Ans. 4 and 7 – 8.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of
claim 21.
DECISION
The Examiner’s decision to reject claim 21 is affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED

tj