Ex Parte Spracklen et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 26, 2018

13909743 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 26, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO.
13/909,743
152561 7590
NDWE/VMW ARE
99 Almaden Blvd.
Suite 710
San Jose, CA 95113
FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
06/04/2013 Lawrence SPRACKLEN
03/28/2018
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.
B222 7735
EXAMINER
KIM, SISLEY NAHYUN
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2196
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/28/2018 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):
ndwe_docketing@cardinal-ip.com
patent@ndwe.com
ipadmin@vmware.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte LAWRENCE SPRACKLEN, HARI SIV ARAMAN,
VIKRAM MAKHIJA, and RISHI BIDARKAR
Appeal2017-008998
Application 13/909,743 1
Technology Center 2100
Before ROBERT E. NAPPI, DAVID M. KOHUT, and
LYNNE E. PETTIGREW, Administrative Patent Judges.
KOHUT, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the
Examiner's Final Rejection of claims 1-5, 8-12, and 15-19.2 We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We REVERSE.
1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is VMware, Inc. App.
Br. 2.
2 Claims 6, 7, 13, 14, and 20 were previously cancelled.
Appeal2017-008998
Application 13/909,743
INVENTION
Appellants' invention relates to processing a system call for a parallel
computing framework library in a virtualization environment. Spec.
Abstract.
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Claims 1, 8, and 15 are independent. Claim 1 is representative and is
reproduced below.
1. A computer implemented method, comprising:
processing a system call from an application running
within a client virtual machine running on a first host device,
wherein the processing includes
determining that the system call is a request for a
device driver to instruct a physical general-purpose
graphics processing unit (GPGPU) or co-processor to
perform a function and the request is intended for a
parallel computing framework library, wherein a first
appliance virtual machine provides the parallel
computing library and virtualization of the GPGPU or
co-processor for a plurality of virtual machines including
the client virtual machine;
determining, in response to the system call, that an
established connection between the client virtual machine
and the first appliance virtual machine has switched from
a first protocol to a second protocol, the first and second
protocols including a high-performance transmission
protocol and a low-performance transmission protocol;
and
transmitting, in response to determining that the
system call is intended for the parallel computing
framework library and according to the second protocol,
the request from the client virtual machine to the first
2
Appeal2017-008998
Application 13/909,743
appliance virtual machine to execute the request via a
guest device pass-through that communicates directly
with the GPGPU or co-processor.
Independent claims 8 and 15 recite similar limitations as claim 1, and
Appellants argue they are allowable for the same reasons as argued for claim
1. App. Br. 6, 11.
REJECTIONS AT ISSUE
The Examiner has rejected claims 1--4, 8-11, and 15-18 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Wibling (US 2009/0144510 Al,
published June 4, 2009), Heninger (US 2013/0191826 Al, published July
25, 2013) and Ang (US 2009/0119087 Al, published May 7, 2009). 3
The Examiner has rejected claims 5, 12, and 19 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Wibling, Heninger, Ang, and Rosu (US
2006/0230407 Al, published Oct. 12, 2006).
ISSUE
Appellants' arguments present us with the following dispositive issue:
Did the Examiner err in finding Wibling teaches or suggests a
parallel computing framework library as required in claim 1?
ANALYSIS
With respect to claim 1, the Examiner finds Wibling teaches a first
user application makes a system call to a Virtual Machine Communication
3 Throughout this Decision we refer to the Appeal Brief filed February 27,
2017; Reply Brief filed June 5, 2017; Final Rejection dated October 27,
2016; and the Examiner's Answer dated April 6, 2017.
3
Appeal2017-008998
Application 13/909,743
Interface (VMCI) framework library to request communication between
VMCI drivers in the first user application and a second user application
regarding shared memory. 4 Final Act. 3-7; Ans. 3--4. The Examiner finds
Wibling's VMCI framework library is a parallel computing framework
library, as claimed. Ans. 3. The Examiner explains that because there is no
definition in the claim, a parallel computing framework library can be
interpreted as "a framework library/ driver that is utilized and executed on
multiple platforms." Id.
We disagree with the Examiner. As Appellants correctly point out,
Wibling's VMCI framework "is an infrastructure that provides fast and
efficient communication between a virtual machine and the host operating
system and between two or more virtual machines on the same host" and "is
not focused on providing parallel computing." App. Br. 7-8. As such, we
are persuaded by Appellants' argument that Wibling's VMCI framework
manages communications and does not provide for the implementation of
parallel computing as required by the claim. App. Br. 8-10.
We are further persuaded by Appellants' argument that Wibling does
not teach, nor would a person of ordinary skill in the art understand, that the
VMCI framework library is similar to a parallel computing framework
library. App. Br. 8; Reply Br. 2-3. The Specification indicates that a
"parallel computing framework library" is a term of art referring to a
specific type of parallel computing framework such as Computer Unified
Device Architecture (CUDAâ„¢) or Open Computing Language (OpenCLâ„¢),
4 Independent claims 8 and 15 recite similar limitations to claim 1. Claims
2-5, 9-12, and 16-19 are dependent upon independent claims 1, 8, and 15,
respectively.
4
Appeal2017-008998
Application 13/909,743
which in Appellants' invention receives a system call that may be a request
for a device driver "to instruct a general-purpose graphics processing unit
(GPGPU) or co-processor to perform an action." Spec. i-f 20; see also id. i-fi-1
21, 2 7, 29, 31. We agree with Appellants that the Examiner's interpretation
of the claimed parallel computing framework library as being taught by
Wibling's VMCI framework library is unreasonably broad. See App. Br. 8-
9; Reply Br. 2-3.
Heninger, Ang, and Rosu were not cited to teach or suggest the above
disputed limitation, and we will not engage in any inquiry as to whether
these references cure the noted deficiencies. Thus, for the reasons set forth
above, we do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of claims 1-5, 8-12, or
15-19.
DECISION
The Examiner's rejections of claims 1-5, 8-12, and 15-19 are
reversed.
REVERSED
5