International Business Machines Corporation

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Mar 24, 2022

2020004952 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 24, 2022)

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. 16/114,222 08/28/2018 Gheorghe Almasi CA920130038US03_8150-0905 3261 112978 7590 03/24/2022 Cuenot, Forsythe & Kim, LLC 20283 State Road 7, Suite 300 Boca Raton, FL 33498 EXAMINER CHAPPELL, DANIEL C ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2135 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 03/24/2022 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): ibmptomail@iplawpro.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte GHEORGHE ALMASI, BARNABY DALTON, ILIE G. TANASE, and ETTORE TIOTTO Appeal 2020-004952 Application 16/114,222 Technology Center 2100 Before MAHSHID D. SAADAT, JOHN D. HAMANN, and JASON M. REPKO, Administrative Patent Judges. SAADAT, 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 15-34. 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 IBM Corporation. Appeal Br. 1. Appeal 2020-004952 Application 16/114,222 2 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER The claims are directed to allocation of distributed data structures. Claim 15, reproduced below, illustrates the claimed subject matter (with disputed limitations emphasized): 15. A computer-implemented method for allocation to a symmetric heap, comprising: defining the symmetric heap as including a symmetric partition for each of a plurality of processes of a partitioned global address space (PGAS) system; performing, by an allocator process, a find free block operation to identifying a free block of memory having at least a pre-defined size; increasing, in response to not finding the free block of memory having the at least the pre-defined size and by an allocator process; a global symmetric break of the symmetric heap; and broadcasting, by an allocator process to the plurality of processes, the global symmetric break. Appeal Br. 18 (Claims App.). REFERENCES The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is: Name Reference Date Archambault US 7,380,086 B2 May 27, 2008 Frank US 2010/0299495 A1 Nov. 25, 2010 Elliott US 2013/0177017 A1 July 11, 2013 REJECTION Claim(s) Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis 15-34 103(a) Archambault, Elliott, Frank Appeal 2020-004952 Application 16/114,222 3 OPINION The Rejection and Contentions Appellant argues that the proposed combination of the references and specially Frank does not teach or suggest “increasing, in response to not finding the free block of memory having the at least the pre-defined size and by an allocator process; a global symmetric break of the symmetric heap” and “broadcasting, by an allocator process to the plurality of processes, the global symmetric break,” as recited in claim 15. App. Br. 8. Appellant focuses on the teachings of Frank and asserts that the cited paragraph 24 of Frank describes dynamically mapping and binding logical data blocks, but Notably, nothing about this passage refers to (i) “not finding the free block of memory having the at least the pre-defined size,” (ii) a “symmetric heap,” (iii) “a global symmetric break of the symmetric heap,” (iv) “increasing . . . a global symmetric break,” and (iv) “broadcasting . . . to the plurality of processes,” and (v) “broadcasting . . . the global symmetric break.” Id. at 9. Appellant argues that paragraph 33 of Frank is similarly deficient in disclosing the disputed claim limitations. Id. at 10-11. In particular, Appellant asserts Frank’s disclosure of “a partition can be expanded when it starts to fill up” in paragraph 24 does not describe the specific memory allocation process of increasing a global symmetric break of the symmetric heap, as required by the claim. Id. at 12. Regarding Frank’s disclosure in paragraph 33, Appellant argues that the response storage pool manager (SMP) 125 sends merely includes a message that a change has been made, but not that a global symmetric break of the symmetric heap has been increased. Id. at 13. The Examiner found that Appeal 2020-004952 Application 16/114,222 4 Frank teaches increasing, in response to not finding the free block of memory having the at least the pre-defined size and by an allocator process; a global symmetric break of the symmetric heap (¶ [0033] expanding a volume when there is unused space, also ¶ [0024] partitions expanded when they are filled up, analogous to running out of available space to fulfill the request); and broadcasting, by an allocator process to the plurality of processes, the global symmetric break (¶ [0033] when partition is expanded, response is sent to storage pool manager informing of the change). Final Act. 23. In the Answer, the Examiner further explained that Frank’s disclosure, in paragraph 24, of expanding a partition “when it starts to fill up” is similar to Appellant’s disclosure in paragraph 71 of the Specification of “a ‘grow partition’ operation” and “analogous to the claimed in response to not finding the free block of memory having the at least the pre-defined size.” Ans. 3-4. The Examiner applied this definition and interpretation in view of paragraph 71 of Appellant’s disclosure and concluded that, although “Frank does not explicitly state that language of global symmetric break,” Frank “teaches the functionality of expanding a partition (analogous to claimed increasing global symmetric break).” Ans. 4 Issue on Appeal Appellant’s arguments in the Appeal Brief present the following dispositive issue: Whether the Examiner erred in finding the combination of Archambault, Elliott, and Frank taught or suggested the independent claim 15 limitation, “increasing, in response to not finding the free block of memory having the at least the pre-defined size and by an allocator process; a global symmetric break of the symmetric heap” and “broadcasting, by an allocator process to the plurality of processes, the global symmetric break.” Appeal 2020-004952 Application 16/114,222 5 Analysis On this record, we are persuaded by Appellant’s argument that Frank’s disclosure lacks the specific memory allocation and change required by the disputed limitation. We specifically agree with Appellant that “Frank does not describe what is meant by ‘when it starts to fill up’ or how that is determined,” whereas the claim requires a specific analysis prior to increasing the global symmetric break. See Reply Br. 2. The Examiner’s definition of “increasing, . . ., a global symmetric break of the symmetric heap” as “expanding a volume” in Frank is unreasonably broad, in light of the Specification. Although the Specification describes a process that “increases the virtual memory address of the global symmetric break by the size of the block of memory that is needed,” see Spec. ¶ 71, the claim requires other steps to be performed that allow the memory expansion, such as “increasing, . . ., a global symmetric break of the symmetric heap.” In particular, paragraph 46 and Figure 3 of Appellant’s disclosure outline the partition size with respect to the global symmetric break as follows: [0046] The lowest unmapped address greater than the symmetric origin in each of symmetric partitions 1-9 is called the “partition break.” In FIG. 3, the partition break for each of symmetric partitions 1-9 is the top of the shaded region. As such, the partition break for a given process may or may not coincide with the global symmetric break. As illustrated in FIG. 3, the virtual memory address of the global symmetric break is the same, or identical, across each of processes 1-9. While the partition break may not be equal to the global symmetric break for a process, no partition break is permitted to be smaller than the global symmetric break. Similarly, the Appeal 2020-004952 Application 16/114,222 6 global symmetric break is not permitted to be less than the symmetric origin. Spec. ¶ 46 (emphases added). Figure 3 illustrates an example of a symmetric heap compared to a set global symmetric break in a Partitioned Global Address Space (PGAS) system. The Examiner’s broad construction of “increasing, . . ., a global symmetric break of the symmetric heap” based on a general increase in a memory block address in effect would encompass any modification to the virtual memory blocks - but that is not what is separately claimed as a “defining the symmetric heap as including a symmetric partition for each of a plurality of processes of a partitioned global address space (PGAS) system.” Also, the Examiner’s proposed modification to Archambault and Elliott by the cited portions of Frank based on the assertion that “the partitions themselves would be symmetric (Elliot ¶ [0014]) in order to maintain that, an increase in one memory region/partition would be reflected in all the memory regions” lacks the claim requirement that “the global symmetric break sets a minimum partition break for all of the processes.” See Reply Br. 4. The Examiner does not explain how a global symmetric Appeal 2020-004952 Application 16/114,222 7 break is considered in increasing a partition volume of Frank. We are not persuaded that Frank teaches or suggests the concept of “increasing, . . ., a global symmetric break of the symmetric heap” as claimed. CONCLUSION In view of our analysis above, we do not sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejections of independent claim 15, independent 23 and 31 reciting similar limitations, nor of the remaining dependent claims, over Archambault, Elliott, and Frank. DECISION SUMMARY In summary: Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 15-34 103(a) Archambault, Elliott, Frank 15-34 REVERSED