Ex Parte Song

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 5, 2018

14582757 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 5, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
14/582,757 12/24/2014
31817 7590 06/07/2018
SCHWABE, WILLIAMSON & WYATT, P.C.
1211SW5th Avenue, Suite 1600
Portland, OR 97204
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Justin J. Song
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.
127076-200961 (P27449C) 4427
EXAMINER
PARTRIDGE, WILLIAM B
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2183
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/07/2018 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):
IPDocketing@SCHWABE.com
intelparalegal@schwabe.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte JUSTIN J. SONG
Appeal2017-010756
Application 14/582,757 1
Technology Center 2100
Before ROBERT E. NAPPI, MONICA S. ULLAGADDI, and
SCOTT B. HOWARD, Administrative Patent Judges.
HOW ARD, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Final Rejection
of claims 1-24, which constitute all of the claims pending in this application.
We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We affirm.
1 Appellant identifies Intel Corporation as the real party in interest. App. Br.
1.
Appeal2017-010756
Application 14/582,757
THE INVENTION
The disclosed invention is directed to a software-based thread
remapping for power savings. Spec. 1.
Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject
matter:
1. A method comprising:
based on power state information for a first logical
processor of a first core and a first logical processor of a second
core, swapping work related to a thread of the first logical
processor of the first core from the first logical processor of the
first core to the first logical processor of the second core;
placing the first logical processor of the first core into a
power-off state; and
placing the first core into a power-off state.
REJECTION2
Claims 1-24 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph as
failing to comply with the written description requirement. Final Act. 5---6.
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner's rejection in light of Appellant's
arguments that the Examiner erred. In reaching this decision, we have
considered all evidence presented and all arguments made by Appellant. We
are not persuaded by Appellant's arguments regarding claims 1-24.
2 In addition to the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112, i-f 1, the Examiner
initially rejected claims 1-24 as anticipated under 35 U.S.C. § 102 and for
failing to comply with 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph. Final Act. 4, 8-
12. Those rejections were withdrawn. Ans. 3--4.
2
Appeal2017-010756
Application 14/582,757
Rejection Based on "Power-off State"
Appellant argues the Examiner erred in finding that the Specification
does not contain written description support for the term "power-off state."
App. Br. 4--7. According to Appellant, Table 1 indicates that "the estimated
power consumption of the C-6 core state is described as 'OW."' Id. at 5
(quoting Spec. 7, Table 1 ). Furthermore, Appellant states paragraph 32 of
the Specification discloses that the C-6 power state "utilizes roughly zero
watts (OW)." Id. (quoting Spec. i-f 32). Additionally, Appellant asserts that
paragraph 34 of the Specification "explicitly equates one of the cores being
in the C6 C-state of utilizing 'OW,' which explicitly supports the concept of
'power off."' Id.at 6 (citing Spec. i-f 34). Appellant further argues the
Examiner's finding that the "the C-6 power state is described as a 'deep core
C-state' which conveys some sense of being 'on', simply in a very reduced
power state" is contradicted by the what is shown in Table 1. Id. (quoting
Notice of Decision from Post-Prosecution Pilot Program (P3) Conference
(hereinafter "P3 Notice"), 2).
The Examiner finds, taken as a whole, reference to "OW" in the
Specification refers to roughly zero watts, not exactly zero watts, which
connotes a low-power state, not a power-off state. Final Act. 5---6; P3
Notice, 2; Ans. 4--8. Specifically, the Examiner finds:
While Table 1 lists "OW" under estimated power consumption
for the Core C-6 state it does not convey a power-off state. C-6
is identified as a "deep lower power state" ([0004 ]), "deep e-
state" ([0023]), "deep core C-state" ([0029]), or "deep thread e-
state" ([0030]) but never a power-off state. Even assuming
arguendo, that the C-6 is intended to be the equivalent of a
power-off state, the state is never defined as using absolutely
zero watts, only roughly zero watts, and thus is not an actual
power-off state. A power-off state would be a state where the
3
Appeal2017-010756
Application 14/582,757
power was removed (off: "so as to be removed or separated")
and thus the power usage would be zero watts, not roughly or
approximately or estimated as zero watts. While the
specification makes notation of the C-6 state as "OW" in a few
instances (e.g. Table 1 and [0034]) the specification as a whole
makes it clear this is still roughly zero watts ([0032] "C-6
power state utilizes roughly zero watts (OW)", Table 1
"Estimate Power Consumption", the numerous identifications
of it as a deep lower power, deep C-state, etc) and not actually a
true/absolute zero watts.
Ans. 4--5.
To satisfy the written description requirement, the disclosure must
reasonably convey to skilled artisans that Appellant possessed the claimed
invention as of the filing date. See Ariad Pharms., Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co.,
598 F.3d 1336, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (en bane). Specifically, the
description must "clearly allow persons of ordinary skill in the art to
recognize that [the inventor] invented what is claimed." Id. (alteration in
original) (quoting Vas-Cath Inc. v. Mahurkar, 935 F.2d 1555, 1563 (Fed.
Cir. 1991)).
[T]he test requires an objective inquiry into the four comers of
the specification from the perspective of a person of ordinary
skill in the art. Based on that inquiry, the specification must
describe an invention understandable to that skilled artisan and
show that the inventor actually invented the invention claimed.
Id. The claimed invention need not be recited in haec verba in the original
specification in order to satisfy the written description requirement. Id. at
1352.
We are not persuaded by Appellant's argument that the Examiner
erred. Instead, we agree with and adopt the Examiner's findings as our own.
Specifically, the Specification defines "OW" as roughly zero watts. Spec.
i-f 32. Thus every time "OW" appears in the Specification, such as in Table 1
4
Appeal2017-010756
Application 14/582,757
and paragraph 34, it is accompanied by disclosure referencing roughly zero
watts, not exactly zero watts, as discussed above. And, contrary to the
Appellant's arguments, a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand
roughly zero is not the same as zero. Accordingly, the Specification, taken
as a whole, does not convey to one of ordinary skill in the art that the
inventor had possession of "placing the first logical processor of the first
core into a power-off state" and "placing the first core into a power-off
state" as recited in claim 1 at the time the application was filed.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of claims 1-24.
Rejection Based on "Same Die Package"
The Examiner also found the Specification does not provide written
description support for "the first and second cores reside on the same die
package," as recited in claim 5, 11, 17, and 23. See Final Act. 6.
Appellant has not identified any errors in this finding. See App. Br. 7
(indicating Appellant will amend the claims). 3 "If an appellant fails to
present arguments on a particular issue - or, more broadly, on a particular
rejection-the Board will not, as a general matter, unilaterally review those
uncontested aspects of the rejection." Ex parte Frye, 94 USPQ2d 1072,
1 07 5 (BP AI 2010) (precedential). According! y, we summarily affirm this
alternate ground for rejecting claims 5, 11, 1 7, and 23.
3 Although Appellant states that addressing this issue is unnecessary, the
appeal is taken on all bases of rejecting the claims. See 37 C.F.R. § 4.31(c);
MPEP 1204 (II) ("If an appellant does not file an amendment cancelling
claims that the appellant does not wish to appeal, but then also fails to
provide any argument in the appeal brief directed to those claims, any
challenge to that ground of rejection has been waived, and the Board has
discretion to simply affirm any rejections against such claims.").
5
Appeal2017-010756
Application 14/582,757
DECISION
For the above reasons, we affirm the Examiner's decisions rejecting
claims 1-24.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l )(iv). See 37
C.F.R. § 41.50(f).
AFFIRMED
6