Intel Corporation

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jul 8, 2021

2020002767 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 8, 2021)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
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
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
15/718,655 09/28/2017 Mihir Patel D146634-US 2533
88032 7590 07/08/2021
Jordan IP Law, LLC
12501 Prosperity Drive, Suite 401
Silver Spring, MD 20904
EXAMINER
KIM, DONG U
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2196
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/08/2021 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):
admin@jordaniplaw.com
info@jordaniplaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte MIHIR PATEL, RYAN KERN, DILIP SHIVARAJU,
EMAD ATTIA, and COREY GOUGH
Appeal 2020-002767
Application 15/718,655
Technology Center 2100
Before ALLEN R. MacDONALD, JEREMY J. CURCURI, and
DAVID J. CUTITTA II, Administrative Patent Judges.
CURCURI, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–21. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.

1 We use the word Appellant to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.42(a). Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Intel Corporation.
Appeal Br. 3.
Appeal 2020-002767
Application 15/718,655

2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims are directed to “[d]ynamic platform feature tuning based
on virtual machine runtime requirements.” Spec., Title. Claim 1, reproduced
below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. A system to manage virtual machines, comprising:
a cloud server platform, the cloud server platform
including a substrate and logic coupled to the substrate, wherein
the logic is to:
configure one or more first logical cores associated
with a first virtual machine of the cloud server platform,
wherein the configuration of the one or more first logical
cores is based at least in part on one or more first feature
settings;
determine one or more active feature settings that are
specific to an active application associated with an active
virtual machine based at least in part on application runtime
requirements, wherein the active feature settings are
different than the first feature settings;
assign the one or more active feature settings to the
active virtual machine in response to the application
runtime requirements;
configure one or more active logical cores associated
with the active virtual machine of the cloud server
platform, wherein the configuration of the one or more
active logical cores is based at least in part on the one or
more active feature settings; and
a power supply to provide power to the cloud server
platform.
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is:
Name Reference Date
Galal US 2010/0199277 A1 Aug. 5, 2010
Jayamohan US 2012/0084777 A1 Apr. 5, 2012
Min US 2018/0088997 A1 Mar. 29, 2018

Appeal 2020-002767
Application 15/718,655

3
REJECTIONS
Claims 1, 3–5, 8, 10, 12, 14, 16, 18, and 19 are rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 102(a)(2) as anticipated by Jayamohan. Final Act. 4–11.
Claims 2, 9, 13, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious
over Jayamohan and Min. Final Act. 12–15.
Claims 6, 7, 11, 15, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
obvious over Jayamohan and Galal. Final Act. 15–18.
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over
Jayamohan, Min, and Galal. Final Act. 18–26.
OPINION
The Anticipation Rejection of Claims 1, 3–5, 8, 10, 12, 14, 16, 18, and 19 by
Jayamohan
The Examiner finds Jayamohan describes all limitations of claim 1.
Final Act. 4–8. In particular, the Examiner finds Jayamohan describes
determine one or more active feature settings that are
specific to an active application associated with an active virtual
machine based at least in part on application runtime
requirements, wherein the active feature settings are different
than the first feature settings;
assign the one or more active feature settings to the active
virtual machine in response to the application runtime
requirements;
as recited in claim 1. Final Act. 5–6 (citing Jayamohan ¶¶ 28, 58, 65, 70);
see also Ans. 3–8 (citing Jayamohan ¶¶ 11, 25, 28, 49, 58, 63, 65, 70).
Appellant presents the following principal arguments:
Appellant respectfully submits that the Examiner has not
established that the cited reference discloses operations to
“assign the one or more active feature settings to the active
Appeal 2020-002767
Application 15/718,655

4
virtual machine in response to the application runtime
requirements,” as recited in claim 1. For example, FIG. 4 of
Jayamohan appears to discuss assigning features to each virtual
machine without regard to the active application. Further,
paragraphs [0016–0017] of Jayamohan appears to make clear
that first, “features” are assigned to “each of multiple processor
cores;” second, there is a “record of the features and associated
feature properties” that is maintained; and only later, each
application is then scheduled “based at least in part on the
features supported by the processor cores.”
Appeal Br. 11.
Similarly, paragraph [0070] Jayamohan appears to discuss
choosing a virtual machine with an appropriate set of already
assigned features from the “record of features.” The Examiner
has cited to virtual machine control module 122 as controlling
the features of virtual cores 116 of Jayamohan. Appellant
respectfully submits, however, that the Examiner has failed to
show any portion of Jayamohan where the virtual machine
control module 122 controls the features of virtual cores 116 “in
response to the application runtime requirements,” as recited in
claim 1. Instead, paragraph [0030] of Jayamohan appears to
show that virtual machine control module 122 controls the
features of virtual cores 116 in response to “both the number
of virtual cores 116 in virtual machine 108 and the number
of physical cores 106 that support the particular feature.”
Appeal Br. 12.
Appellant respectfully submits that choosing a virtual
machine for an application based on a pre-existing “record of
features” is quite different from the claimed operations to “assign
the one or more active feature settings to the active virtual
machine in response to the application runtime requirements,”
as recited in claim 1.
Appeal Br. 13; see also Reply Br. 5–7.
Appeal 2020-002767
Application 15/718,655

5
We review the appealed rejections for error based upon the issues
identified by Appellant, and in light of the arguments and evidence produced
thereon. Ex parte Frye, 94 USPQ2d 1072, 1075 (BPAI 2010) (precedential).
Appellant’s Specification discloses “feature settings may be
determined based at least in part on the application runtime requirements.”
Spec. ¶ 26. Appellant’s Specification further discloses:
In some implementations, the application runtime
requirements may include one or more of an indication of latency
sensitivity, or an indication of a data reference pattern, the like,
and/or combinations thereof. The data reference pattern may
include an indication of whether the active application 122
accesses memory in a random or sequential manner. For
example, operation 304 might determine whether the active
application 122 is a streaming application. The active feature
settings 134 may include one or more of idle power state settings,
execution power state settings, or pre-fetch settings, the like,
and/or combinations thereof.
Spec. ¶ 27. Appellant’s Specification further discloses “the determined
feature settings may be assigned to the associated virtual machine.” Spec.
¶ 28.
Thus, we interpret the limitations:
determine one or more active feature settings that are
specific to an active application associated with an active virtual
machine based at least in part on application runtime
requirements, wherein the active feature settings are different
than the first feature settings;
assign the one or more active feature settings to the active
virtual machine in response to the application runtime
requirements;
as recited in claim 1 as requiring determining one or more active feature
settings based on application runtime requirements, and then assigning the
Appeal 2020-002767
Application 15/718,655

6
one or more active feature settings to the active virtual machine in response
to the application runtime requirements. See Spec. ¶¶ 26–28.
Jayamohan discloses
Different processor cores in a computing device can
support different features. In one or more embodiments, the
features supported by each of multiple physical processor cores
of a computing device are identified. A set of one or more
features of the multiple physical processor cores to make
available to virtual processor cores of the virtual machine are
determined based at least in part on both the one or more features
supported by each of the multiple physical processor cores and a
number of virtual processor cores of the virtual machine. In
additional embodiments, a multi-level scheduling model is used.
An operating system level scheduler of an operating system
schedules multiple applications for execution on multiple
processor cores, and a user level scheduler of an application
schedules application threads of that application for execution on
one or more of the multiple processor cores.
Jayamohan, Abstract.
Jayamohan further discloses “whether a particular feature is made
available to virtual cores 116 is based on both the number of virtual cores
116 in virtual machine 108 and the number of physical cores 106 that
support the particular feature.” Jayamohan ¶ 30.
Jayamohan further discloses “[t]his multi-level scheduler model can
leverage the asymmetric nature of the processor cores, scheduling
application threads for execution based on the features supported by the
processor cores.” Jayamohan ¶ 61.
Jayamohan further discloses “[p]rocessor cores 604(1), . . . , 604(m)
can be, for example, physical cores 106(1), . . . , 106(x) or virtual cores
116(1), . . . , 116(y) of FIG. 1.” Jayamohan ¶ 62.
Appeal 2020-002767
Application 15/718,655

7
Jayamohan further discloses:
In one or more embodiments, user level scheduler 614
selects particular ones of processor cores 604 on which
application threads 616 will be executed. The processor cores
selected by user level scheduler 614 can be based at least in part
on the record of features and associated feature properties
maintained by feature catalog manager 608. For example, user
level scheduler 614 may schedule application threads 616 for
execution on processor cores 604 that support particular features
(e.g., support hardware AES encryption/decryption), may
schedule application threads for execution on processor cores
604 that support a particular feature having less than a threshold
access latency, and so forth.
Jayamohan ¶ 70.
Based on these disclosures in Jayamohan, we interpret Jayamohan as
describing scheduling application threads for execution based on supported
features of the processor cores, which may be virtual cores, and “whether a
particular feature is made available to virtual cores 116 is based on both the
number of virtual cores 116 in virtual machine 108 and the number of
physical cores 106 that support the particular feature.” Jayamohan ¶ 30
(emphasis added). Thus, Jayamohan does not describe determining one or
more active feature settings based on application runtime requirements, and
then assigning the one or more active feature settings to the active virtual
machine in response to the application runtime requirements, as required by
claim 1 because Jayamohan assigns features to virtual cores in a different
way—in Jayamohan, “whether a particular feature is made available to
virtual cores 116 is based on both the number of virtual cores 116 in virtual
machine 108 and the number of physical cores 106 that support the
particular feature.” Jayamohan ¶ 30 (emphasis added).
Appeal 2020-002767
Application 15/718,655

8
We, therefore, do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1.
We also do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 3–5, which
depend from claim 1.
For the same reasons discussed above when addressing claim 1,
Jayamohan also does not describe the subject matter of independent claim 8.
See Final Act. 11 (“As per claims 8 and 10, these are method claims
corresponding to the system claims 1, 4 and 5. Therefore, these are rejected
based on similar rationale.”)
We, therefore, do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 8.
We also do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 10, which
depends from claim 8.
For the same reasons discussed above when addressing claim 1,
Jayamohan also does not describe the subject matter of independent claim
12. See Final Act. 11 (“As per claims 12 and 14, these are computer readable
storage medium claims corresponding to the system claims 1, 4 and 5.
Therefore, these are rejected based on similar rationale.”)
We, therefore, do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 12.
We also do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 14, which
depends from claim 12.
For the same reasons discussed above when addressing claim 1,
Jayamohan also does not describe the subject matter of independent claim
16. See Final Act. 11 (“As per claims 16, 18 and 19, these are apparatus
claims corresponding to the system claims 1, 3, 4 and 5. Therefore, these are
rejected based on similar rationale.”)
We, therefore, do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 16.
Appeal 2020-002767
Application 15/718,655

9
We also do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 18 and 19,
which depend from claim 16.

The Obviousness Rejection of Claims 2, 9, 13, and 17 over Jayamohan and
Min
The Examiner does not find Min cures the deficiency of Jayamohan.
See Final Act. 12–15.
We, therefore, do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 2, 9,
13, and 17.

The Obviousness Rejection of Claims 6, 7, 11, 15, and 20 over Jayamohan
and Galal
The Examiner does not find Galal cures the deficiency of Jayamohan.
See Final Act. 15–18.
We, therefore, do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 6, 7,
11, 15, and 20.

The Obviousness Rejection of Claim 21 over Jayamohan, Min, and Galal
The Examiner does not find Min or Galal cures the deficiency of
Jayamohan. See Final Act. 18–26.
We, therefore, do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 21.
CONCLUSION
The Examiner’s rejections are reversed.
Appeal 2020-002767
Application 15/718,655

10
DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§
Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1, 3–5, 8,
10, 12, 14,
16, 18, 19
102 Jayamohan 1, 3–5, 8,
10, 12, 14,
16, 18, 19
2, 9, 13, 17 103 Jayamohan, Min 2, 9, 13, 17
6, 7, 11, 15,
20
103 Jayamohan, Galal 6, 7, 11, 15,
20
21 103 Jayamohan, Min,
Galal
21
Overall
Outcome
1–21

REVERSED