Ex Parte Robinson

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 1, 2016

13122544 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 1, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
13/122,544 06/20/2011 Dan Robinson
56436 7590 08/03/2016
Hewlett Packard Enterprise
3404 E. Harmony Road
Mail Stop 79
Fort Collins, CO 80528
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.
82651109 1170
EXAMINER
LILLIS, BRENDAN S
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2133
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/03/2016 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):
hpe.ip.mail@hpe.com
mkraft@hpe.com
chris.mania@hpe.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte DAN ROBINSON
Appeal2015-001004
Application 13/122,544
Technology Center 2100
Before ST. JOHN COURTENAY III, JOHNNY A. KUMAR, and
MATTHEW J. McNEILL, Administrative Patent Judges.
KUMAR, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's Final
Rejection of claims 1-19, which are all the claims pending in the
application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
Invention
The claimed invention on appeal is directed to a system and method of
accessing memory comprising a cache data block having cache sectors, a
common tag block containing metadata referenced to the cache data block,
Appeal2015-001004
Application 13/122,544
and a pending allocation table containing pending writes to the common tag
block. Spec. 1--4.
Representative Claims
1. A sectored cache system, comprising:
a cache data block to comprise separately updatable cache
sectors;
[L 1] a common tag block to contain metadata for the cache
sectors of the data block and writable as a whole; and
[L2] a pending allocation table (PAT) to contain data
representing pending writes to the tag block;
[L3] wherein the PAT is to receive a broadcast comprising a
data change to the tag block, and wherein the PAT is to update
data representing other pending writes to the tag block upon
receipt of the broadcast so that the changed data is included
when the other pending writes are written to the tag block.
2. A sectored cache system according to claim 1, comprising
a plurality of cache blocks and a common PAT operative to
contain the data representing pending writes to a plurality of said
cache blocks from a plurality of clients, wherein the broadcast
includes an index identifying a specific cache block and is
applied only to PAT entries applying to sectors in said specific
cache block. [L4]
8. A method according to claim 6, wherein an entry in the
PAT is updated for the request to which it relates only when the
entry is ready to be written to the cache tag. [L5]
(Emphasis added regarding the contested limitations, labeled as LI, L2, L3,
L4, and L5.)
Rejections
A. Claims 1--4, 6-15, 17, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
being anticipated by Guthrie (US 2004/0215900 Al; issued Oct. 28, 2004).
2
Appeal2015-001004
Application 13/122,544
B. Claims 5, 16, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
obvious over the combined teachings and suggestions of Guthrie and Ahmed
(US 2007/0271416 Al; published Nov. 22, 2007).
Grouping of Claims
Based on Appellant's arguments, we decide the appeal of claims 1,
3-7, 9, 10, and 12-19 on the basis of representative claim 1. See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(l)(iv). We address the rejections of claims 8 and 11 on the basis
of representative claim 8, and the rejection of claim 2 separately, infra.
Contentions
I. Regarding the anticipation rejection of claim 1, Appellant contests
limitations LI, L2, and L3. App. Br. 12-14; Reply Br. 1-2. Appellant
particularly contends with respect to LI, L2, and L3, inter alia:
Assuming, arguendo, that the Examiner is correct and the cache
directory array 32 of Guthrie is the same as the claimed tag
block, Guthrie still fails to disclose a PAT that contains data
representing pending writes to the tag block, and also fails to
disclose that the PAT is to update data representing other
pending writes to the tag block upon receipt of the broadcast as
required by the independent claims. Guthrie discloses utilizing
various queues to communicate information amongst
themselves about the status field for pending cache directory
array writes and the actual completion timing of those writes.
(Guthrie, i-f39). However, the queues are not PATs nor are they
tables at all.
Reply Br. 1-2 (footnote omitted).
II. Appellant further contends with respect to L3, inter alia:
Moreover, in the independent claims, the PAT must update data
representing other pending writes to the tag block upon receipt
of a broadcast containing a data change to the tag block.
3
Appeal2015-001004
Application 13/122,544
(Id.)
However, Guthrie only teaches that the queues (which as
explained above are not PA Ts, but which the Examiner cites as
the PAT) communicate information about the status field such
that the queues are able to coordinate their activities. (Guthrie,
i-f39). Guthrie does not suggest that the queues themselves are
updated upon receipt of a broadcast at all.
III. Regarding the§ 102 rejection of claim 2, Appellant particularly
contends with respect to L4 (App. Br. 14--15; Reply Br. 2):
However, nowhere does the Examiner cite, nor is it stated in
Guthrie that the broadcast is only applied to PAT entries
applying to sectors in the specific cache block as required by
claim 2. While in Guthrie, the broadcast may be applied to
queues applying to sectors in the specific cache block, Guthrie
does not require them to be only applied to sectors in the
specific cache block.
Reply Br. 2.
IV. Regarding the§ 102 rejection of claim 8, Appellant particularly
contends \vith respect to L5 (ii .. pp. Br. 14--15; Reply Br. 3):
Claims 8 and 11 require that the entry in the PAT be updated
only when the entry is ready to be written to the cache tag. In
Guthrie, the queue delays updating the cache directory array
until the directory write indication from the parent queue is
de-asserted .... Guthrie fails to teach when the queues (which
as explained above are not PA Ts, but which the Examiner cites
as the PAT) are updated.
Reply Br. 3 (citation omitted).
4
Appeal2015-001004
Application 13/122,544
ANALYSIS
Rejection of Claim 1 under§ 102
We have considered all of Appellant's arguments and evidence
presented. We disagree with Appellant's arguments, and we adopt as our
own: ( 1) the findings and reasons set forth by the Examiner in the action
from which this appeal is taken, and (2) the reasons and rebuttals set forth in
the Answer in response to Appellant's arguments. Ans. 2-9. However, we
highlight and address specific findings and arguments for emphasis in our
analysis below.
At the outset, regarding limitation L 1 ("a common tag block to
contain metadata for the cache sectors of the data block and writable as a
whole"), we observe Appellant acknowledges that the cache directory array
32 of Guthrie may correspond to the claimed tag block (Reply Br. 1 ). We
agree with the Examiner's findings that the cache directory array disclosed
by Guthrie meets the claimed limitation because it contains metadata for
cache sectors of a data block (Ans. 5---6) and is writeable as a whole (Final
Act. 3).
Regarding limitation L2, Appellant urges: "Guthrie still fails to
disclose a PAT that contains data representing pending writes to the tag
block" (Reply Br. 1). We note that Appellant (App. Br. 13-14; Reply Br. 1-
2) does not directly address the Examiner's specific findings, which state,
"Guthrie specifically refers to having various queues (i.e. PA Ts)
communicate amongst themselves information about the status field values
for pending cache directory array writes (i.e. pending tag block writes) and
the actual timing and completion of said writes." Ans. 6 (internal quotation
mark omitted) (citing Guthrie i-f 39). Although Appellant admits that
5
Appeal2015-001004
Application 13/122,544
"Guthrie discloses utilizing various queues to communicate information
amongst themselves about the status field for pending cache directory array
writes" (Reply Br. 2), Appellant does not explain why "the queues are not
PA Ts nor are they tables at all" (Id.).
We note that the cache directory array 32 is in table format (Ans. 5;
see Guthrie Fig. 2) and that the tables are queued (Id.). Therefore, the cache
directory arrays which are not at the top of the queue are pending. We
observe Guthrie expressly describes: "pending cache directory array 32
writes" (i-f 39). Thus, we find no deficiencies regarding the Examiner's
broad but reasonable claim interpretation in the rejection of L2.
Appellant further contends that the Examiner fails to disclose
limitation L3, "the PAT is to update data representing other pending writes
to the tag block upon receipt of the broadcast" (Reply Br. 1 ), stating:
Guthrie only teaches that the queues (which as explained above
are not PA Ts, but which the Examiner cites as the PAT)
communicate information about the status field such that the
queues are able to coordinate their activities. (Guthrie, i-f39).
Guthrie does not suggest that the queues themselves are
updated upon receipt of a broadcast at all.
Reply Br. 2.
Again, Appellant does not provide a reason why the queues are not
updated upon receipt of a broadcast. We agree with the Examiner's findings
that Guthrie discloses updating the queues upon receipt of a broadcast (Ans.
6-7 (citing Guthrie i1i132 and 39--40)), because communicating information
about a status field of each tag block may correspond to updating data if the
data is inconsistent, as the Examiner points out. We further note Guthrie
teaches:
6
Appeal2015-001004
Application 13/122,544
If no other queues are currently active within the same cache
block, the current queue receives the current state of cache
directory array 32. The current queue then forms a new value
to write to the cache directory array 32 based on this initial
value and the operation being processed.
Guthrie if 40.
The act of basing the write update to the cache directory array on both
the initial value and the operation being processed acknowledges that the
operations on one cache array are consistent and coherent with all of the
other cache arrays in the queues within the same cache block. Moreover,
"differing queues are allowed to overlap operations to different sectors
within a given cache block while still producing consistent directory write
updates." Id. if 42.
Thus, we conclude that Guthrie's "consistent directory write updates"
disclose updating data representing other pending writes to the tag block and
not just that of the current queue. We additionally note that the contested
intended functional limitations recited in the two "wherein" clauses of
limitation L3 do not further limit the structure of the claimed "sectored
cache system" apparatus. 1
1 ?v1PEP § 211 L04 provides guidance regarding the limiting effect to be
given to "wherein'~ clauses:
Claim scope is not limited by c1aim language that suggests or
makes optiona1 but does not require steps to be performed) or by
clairn language that does not limit a clairn to a particular
structure. However, examples of claim language, although not
exhaustive) that may raise a question as to the limiting effect of
the fanguage in a claim are:
7
Appeal2015-001004
Application 13/122,544
Regarding contested limitations LI, L2, and L3, Appellant contests
functional statements of intended use ("to comprise," "to contain," "to
receive," "to update") regarding the intended data arrangement and intended
data content of the "sectored cache system" apparatus of claim 1. 2
"Wherein" clause L3 also recites functional limitations that are intended to
be performed "upon receipt of the broadcast." Under a broad but reasonable
interpretation of claim 1, if the "broadcast" is never received, the recited
functional limitations need not be performed. Regarding apparatus claims
generally, our reviewing court guides the patentability of an apparatus claim
"depends on the claimed structure, not on the use or purpose of that
structure." Catalina Marketing Int 'l., Inc. v. Coolsavings.com, Inc., 289
F.3d 801, 809 (Fed. Cir. 2002). "It is well settled that the recitation of a new
intended use for an old product does not make a claim to that old product
patentable." In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (citations
omitted). As addressed by the court in Paragon Solutions, LLC v. Timex
Corp., 566 F.3d 1075 (Fed. Cir. 2009):
The problem with construing "displaying real-time data" as
used in the claims of the '759 patent to preclude "contextually
(A) "adapted td' or "adapted for~~ clauses;
(B) "wherein'~ c1auses; and
(C) '\vhereby" clauses.
'fv1PEP § 2111.04 Ninth Edition~ Rev. 7, Nov. 2015 (emphasis added).
2 Consistent with Appellant's Specification, we broadly but reasonably
interpret the "sectored cache system" of claim 1 as requiring some form or
type of physical memory structure. See, e.g., Spec. i-f 21 ("The tag array 34
and the data array 32 may be part of the same physical memory device, or
different devices. Typically in a sectored cache 30, the tag array 34 is in a
smaller but faster memory than the data array 32." (emphasis added)).
8
Appeal2015-001004
Application 13/122,544
meaningful delay" is that such a construction injects a use
limitation into a claim written in structural terms. "[A ]pparatus
claims cover what a device is, not what a device does."
Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb, Inc., 909 F.2d 1464,
1468 (Fed. Cir. 1990) .... Absent an express limitation to the
contrary, any use of a device that meets all of the limitations of
an apparatus claim written in structural terms infringes that
apparatus claim .... [S]ee also Roberts v. Ryer, 91 U.S. 150,
157, 23 L.Ed. 267 (1875) ("The inventor of a machine is
entitled to the benefit of all the uses to which it can be put, no
matter whether he had conceived the idea of the use or not.").
Id. at 1090-91 (citations omitted).
This reasoning is applicable here regarding the contested intended
functional limitations L 1, L2, and L3. On this record, and by a
preponderance of the evidence, we are not persuaded of error regarding the
Examiner's finding of anticipation for claim 1.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's anticipation rejection of
representative claim 1, and grouped claims 3, 4, 6, 7, 9, 10, 12-15, 17, and
18. Independent claims 14 and 17 are not separately argued and recite
functional limitations commensurate to contested limitations L 1, L2, and L3
of claim 1.
Rejection of Claim 2 under§ 102
At the outset, regarding limitation L4 ("the broadcast ... is applied
only to PAT entries applying to sectors in said specific cache block"), we
observe Appellant acknowledges that the broadcast of Guthrie may be
applied to queues applying to sectors in the specific cache block. Reply Br.
2. Appellant maintains that the broadcast is not applied exclusively to those
queues. Appellant argues, "Guthrie only appears to disclose that the system
makes a determination as to whether the active queue has a pending cache
9
Appeal2015-001004
Application 13/122,544
directory array update on the same block." App. Br. 14 (citing Guthrie
ii 40).
We agree with the Examiner that this statement is not mutually
exclusive to limitation L4, and that Guthrie does not show an instance
wherein a broadcast is applied to sectors in a different cache block. Ans. 8.
Guthrie only discloses instances throughout paragraphs 40-42 where
broadcasting is performed within a same cache block, for example, "In
particular, when a queue is dispatched to process an operation, the queue
receives information from associated dispatch logic indicating whether any
currently active queue or queues has a cache directory array update pending
to the same cache block." Guthrie ii 40.
We note that because only a reference to a same cache block is made,
and as the Examiner points out, other cache blocks are unaffected by the
current cache block update (Ans. 8), it logically follows that the update
would only be applied to the same cache block.
For at least these reasons, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in
concluding that Guthrie discloses the limitation L4 and, therefore, we sustain
the Examiner's rejection of claim 2.
Rejection of Claims 8 and 11 under§ 102
Regarding limitation L5 ("wherein an entry in the PAT is updated for
the request to which it relates only when the entry is ready to be written to
the cache tag"), Appellant argues, "In Guthrie, the queue delays updating
the cache directory array until the directory write indication from the
parent queue is de-asserted," concluding, "Guthrie fails to teach when the
queues ... are updated." Reply Br. 3.
10
Appeal2015-001004
Application 13/122,544
We agree with the Examiner's finding, "However, in the Guthrie
reference, an entry is not ready to be written until the directory write
indication from the parent queue is de-asserted." Ans. 8.
It is noted that Appellant does not provide support for why
de-asserting a directory write indication does not correspond to rendering an
entry ready to be written, nor has Appellant argued a definition or disclaimer
supported in the original Specification that would impose specific
requirements or limitations regarding how an entry might be considered
ready to be written.
Appellant does not provide a definition in the claim or in the
Specification that would preclude the Examiner's broader reading of "ready
to be written" (claim 8) on the description in Guthrie at paragraphs 41--42
(Ans. 8):
[0041] ... In the following description, this previous "last"
queue will be referred to as the "parent" of the current queue.
The current queue then forms a new value to write to the cache
directory array 32 based on the value the parent queue will
write to the directory and the operation being processed. In
addition, the current queue signals an indication that it is now
the "last" queue dispatched to operate within the current cache
line. Likewise, the parent de-asserts its indication that it is the
"last" queue.
[0042] The current queue will then commence those subtasks
involved in the operation being processed that can be
overlapped with the other queues. The current queue also
delays the cache directory array 32 update until the directory
write indication from the parent queue is de-asserted.
We find that in light of the preceding paragraph, the nature of
delaying the current cache directory update until the "parent" queue is
de-asserted as the "last" queue meets the claimed limitation of a current PAT
11
Appeal2015-001004
Application 13/122,544
queue entry that is updated only when the entry is "ready to be written."
Regarding the Examiner's broader reading, because "applicants may amend
claims to narrow their scope, a broad construction during prosecution creates
no unfairness to the applicant or patentee." In re ICON Health and Fitness,
Inc., 496 F.3d 1374, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (citation omitted).
Therefore, on this record, and by a preponderance of the evidence, we
are not persuaded the Examiner's broader reading of contested limitation L5
on the corresponding features found in Guthrie is overly broad or
unreasonable. Guthrie i-fi-1 41--42.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's anticipation rejection of
representative claim 8. Claim 11 is not separately argued and recites
functional limitations commensurate to contested limitation L5. Therefore,
we sustain the Examiner's rejection of claims 8 and 11.
Rejections of Claims 5, 16, and 19 under§ 103
Regarding the remaining claims rejected under§ 103, Appellant urges
these claims are patentable by virtue of their respective dependencies from
independent claims 1, 14, and 17. App. Br. 15-16. However, we find no
deficiencies regarding the rejection of independent claims 1, 14, and 17, for
the reasons discussed above. Therefore, we sustain the Examiner's
rejections of the remaining claims on appeal for the same reasons discussed
above regarding claims 1, 14, and 17. See Rejection of Claim 1 under § 102,
supra.
12
Appeal2015-001004
Application 13/122,544
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner's rejections of claims 1-19.
No time for taking any action connected with this appeal may be
extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l). See 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(±).
AFFIRMED
13