Mark Ronald. Sikkink et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Sep 16, 2020

14742007 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Sep. 16, 2020)

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.
14/742,007 06/17/2015 Mark Ronald Sikkink 90404972 7223
56436 7590 09/16/2020
Hewlett Packard Enterprise
3404 E. Harmony Road
Mail Stop 79
Fort Collins, CO 80528
EXAMINER
BANTHRONGSACK, JEFF
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2462
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/16/2020 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):
chris.mania@hpe.com
hpe.ip.mail@hpe.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte MARK RONALD SIKKINK, RANDAL STEVEN PASSINT,
JOSEPH MARTIN PLACEK, and RUSSELL LEONARD NICOL
Appeal 2019-000728
Application 14/742,007
Technology Center 2400
BEFORE ROBERT E. NAPPI, DENISE M. POTHIER, and
MICHAEL T. CYGAN, Administrative Patent Judges.
POTHIER, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2019-000728
Application 14/742,007

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1,2 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–22. See Appeal Br. 14. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claimed invention is directed to “improv[ing] the operation of
computers by providing efficient and fast methods of transmitting data.”
Spec. ¶ 3. For example, the Specification discusses transmitting flits (e.g.,
520, 530) from a transmitter (e.g., 710) to a receiver (e.g., 730) over a link
(e.g., 457) in a continuous stream (e.g., 505). Id. ¶¶ 5, 106, 126, Figs. 5A,
7A. Different flits can have different formats, including a link-level protocol
for low-latency messaging (e.g., low-latency format for low latency flits
520) and an end-to-end protocol for high bandwidth (e.g., efficient or
bandwidth format for efficient flits 530). Id. ¶¶ 84–88, 104, Fig. 5A.
Claim 1 is reproduced below:
1. A method of transmitting data as a packet in a burst
mode, from a transmitter in a high-performance computer to a
receiver over a communications channel on a single fabric
within the high-performance computer, the method comprising:
generating a packet comprising a plurality of flits having
different formats, the formats configured to implement different

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 Hewlett Packard
Enterprise Development LP. Appeal Br. 3.
2 Throughout this opinion, we refer to the Final Action (“Final Act.”) mailed
November 30, 2017, the Appeal Brief (“Appeal Br.”) filed April 30, 2018,
the Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.”) mailed September 6, 2018, and the Reply
Brief (“Reply Br.”) filed November 6, 2018.
Appeal 2019-000728
Application 14/742,007

3
communication protocols, including at least one low-latency flit
configured for low latency transmission over the
communications channel, and a plurality of bandwidth flits,
each bandwidth flit configured for high bandwidth throughput
over the same communications channel;
transmitting the plurality of flits over the
communications channel from the transmitter to the receiver in
a contiguous stream, the contiguous stream running two
communication protocols simultaneously over one physical
fabric, the first protocol being a link-level protocol configured
for low-latency messaging, and the second protocol being an
end-to-end protocol configured for high bandwidth; and
at the receiver, reassembling the data from the flits.
Appeal Br. 15 (Claims App.).
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is:
Name Reference Date
Rimmer US 2015/0180790 A1 June 25, 2015
Debbage US 2015/0378737 A1 Dec. 31, 2015

OBVIOUSNESS REJECTION OVER RIMMER AND DEBBAGE
Claims 1–22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable
over Rimmer and Debbage. Final Act. 4–15. The Examiner finds that
Rimmer teaches all of claim 1’s limitations, except for reassembling the data
from the flits at the receiver. Final Act. 4–5 (citing Rimmer ¶¶ 101–102,
124, 334, 342); Ans. 14–15 (citing Rimmer ¶¶ 4, 110, 321, Figs. 2, 45). The
Examiner finds Debbage in combination with Rimmer teaches the missing
“reassembling” recitation. Id. at 5–6 (citing Debbage ¶¶ 3, 31).
Among other arguments, Appellant argues Rimmer teaches specifying
whether a packet, not a flit as claimed, is routed to optimize latency or
Appeal 2019-000728
Application 14/742,007

4
bandwidth. Appeal Br. 9–10 (quoting in part from Rimmer ¶ 334) (citing
Rimmer, Fig. 45); see Reply Br. 5 (citing Rimmer ¶¶ 2–4).

ISSUE
Under § 103, has the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1 by finding
that Rimmer and Debbage would have taught or suggested
generating a packet comprising a plurality of flits having
different formats, the formats configured to implement different
communication protocols, including at least one low-latency flit
configured for low latency transmission over the
communications channel, and a plurality of bandwidth flits,
each bandwidth flit configured for high bandwidth throughput
over the same communications channel[?]

ANALYSIS
On the record before us, we are persuaded the Examiner has erred.
The Examiner relies on Rimmer exclusively to teach the above disputed
limitation. See Final Act. 4–5; Ans. 14. We thus confine our discussion to
Rimmer.
In the Final Action, the Examiner cited to Rimmer’s paragraph 124 to
teach the recited “flits having different formats” and paragraph 334 to teach
the recited “formats [are] configured to implement different communication
protocols” as recited. Final Act. 5 (citing Rimmer ¶¶ 124, 334). Paragraph
124 discusses “flit formatting of the FP” (Fabric Packet). Rimmer ¶ 124.
Rimmer states that flits in a fabric packet that are in a higher priority virtual
lane may preempt flits added to a fabric packet in a lower-priority virtual
lane. Id. (referring to Figures 16 and 17). Figures 16 and 17 show different
virtual lanes, each containing a packet (e.g., “Packet 1,” “Packet 2,” and
Appeal 2019-000728
Application 14/742,007

5
“Pkt 3”), having different formats (e.g., “Low Priority,” “Medium Priority,”
and “HP” respectively (see id. ¶ 127)). These type of packets are described
and shown in Rimmer as Layer 2 Fabric Packets. See id. ¶ 124, Figs. 2, 16.
Although disclosing flits are contained within each packet (see id. ¶ 124),
Rimmer’s Figures 16 and 17 and accompanying text teach assigning the
same format to all the flits of a Layer 2 Fabric Packet in a given virtual lane.
See, e.g., id. ¶¶ 124, 127, Fig. 16.
Thus, despite the above-noted passages and figures in Rimmer suggest
the format for one flit within a Layer 2 Fabric Packet can differ from a
format for another flit within another Layer 2 Fabric Packet (see id. ¶¶ 124,
127, 129–131, 132, Fig. 16), Rimmer does not teach that the same packet
contains different formats (e.g., low and medium priority). On the other
hand, claim 1 recites “a packet comprising a plurality of flits having
different formats.” Appeal Br. 15 (Claims App.). Reading the immediately
above phrase consistent with the Specification (see Spec. ¶¶ 76, 84, 123, Fig.
4A (elements 423)), we construe the above claim language reasonably to
require one or a single packet to have flits with different formats, not
multiple packets to have flits with different formats. See In re Smith Int’l,
Inc., 871 F.3d 1375, 1382 (Fed. Cir. 2017). Cited paragraph 124 in Rimmer
therefore does not teach or suggest “a packet comprising a plurality of flits
having different formats, the formats configured to implement different
communication protocols” for the flits that include (1) “at least one low-
latency flit configured for low latency transmission” and (2) “each
bandwidth flit configured for high bandwidth throughput” as claim 1 recites.
Rimmer’s paragraph 334 cited by the Examiner also fails to teach or
suggest the flits in the packet have different formats as claim 1 recites.
Appeal 2019-000728
Application 14/742,007

6
Rimmer teaches a L2 Fabric Packet, as illustrated in Figure 45 (see Rimmer
¶ 321, Fig. 45), has a plurality of flits, and L2 Fabric Packets have a header
with a RC field. See id. ¶¶ 321, 326, Fig. 45. Rimmer further teaches one
bit of the RC field specifies whether the packet should be routed to optimize
for latency or bandwidth. Id. ¶ 334. There is no discussion in this paragraph
that different flits within the packet are encoded or otherwise assigned
different formats (e.g., optimized for both latency and bandwidth). See id.
We therefore disagree with the Examiner (see Ans. 14 (reproducing
Rimmer, Fig. 45)) and agree with Appellant (Appeal Br. 9) that “Rimmer [in
paragraph ¶ 334] discusses that a determination is made as to whether the
entire packet should be routed to optimize for latency or for bandwidth.”
Id.
Notably, the bottom of Figures 16 and 17 also show a second type of
packet, a Link Transfer Packet. See Rimmer, Figs. 16–17. Some of this
type of packet shows flits containing different formats. See id. For
example, Link Transfer Packet labeled “4” includes flits both from Packet 2
having a Medium Priority format and flits from Pkt 3 having a HP format.
See id. ¶¶ 127, 133, Fig. 16. But, the rejection does not rely on these
passages or map the recited packet to this type of packet when rejecting the
claims. Final Act. 5. In fact, the Examiner explicitly mentioned “Fabric
Packets,” not Link Transfer Packet, in the rejection. Id. (stating “Fabric
Packets may be created as part of a networking stack”) (citing to Rimmer
¶¶ 124, 334, which address the Layer 2 or L2 Fabric Packet). Regardless,
Rimmer does not appear to discuss the Link Transfer Packets include “at
least one low-latency flit configured for low latency transmission” and (2)
Appeal 2019-000728
Application 14/742,007

7
“each bandwidth flit configured for high bandwidth throughput” as claim 1
also requires.
In the Examiner’s Answer, the Examiner also discusses Rimmer’s
paragraph 4, asserting this paragraph discloses determining whether different
protocols should be “implemented to transmit flits in the packet.” Ans. 14.
This paragraph merely states: “It is common for one or more levels of the
interconnect hierarchy to employ different protocols.” Rimmer ¶ 4. Yet,
there is no discussion to employ different protocols to the flits within packet.
See Reply Br. 5 (noting Rimmer ¶ 4) (stating “Rimmer . . . fails to disclose
that the different protocols pertain to flits in a packet. In fact, cited
paragraph [0004] of Rimmer does not even mention ‘flits.’”). Also, to the
extent Rimmer’s paragraph 4 suggests using different communication
protocols for flits within a packet, the Examiner has not explained
adequately how the discussion of “one or more levels of the interconnect
hierarchy” would have suggested to ordinarily skilled artisan to assign the
specifically recited protocols to flits within a packet. The Examiner explains
“bridging may be necessary within a given interconnect level when
heterogeneous compute environments are implemented.” Ans. 14 (emphasis
omitted). But, this explanation is not found in Rimmer’s paragraph 4. See
Rimmer ¶ 4. Nor does the Examiner explain sufficiently how “bridging”
within an interconnect level or being within “heterogeneous compute
environments” (Ans. 14) would have suggested to an ordinarily skilled
artisan to use different formats for a packet’s flits as recited.
Lastly, the Examiner discusses Rimmer’s paragraph 110 and Figure 2
when addressing the recited “a contiguous stream” recitation in claim 1.
Ans. 14–15. Figure 2 shows Fabric Packets and Link Transfer Packets (both
Appeal 2019-000728
Application 14/742,007

8
containing flits and both transmitted at the L2 layer) but fails to provide any
details that flits within a packet “hav[e] different formats, the formats
configured to implement different communication protocols” as claim 1
recites. See Rimmer ¶ 110, Fig. 2. Nor has the Examiner explained how
this Figure 2 may suggest claim 1’s recitation related to the specifically
recited ‘different communication protocols.” See Final Act. 4–5; see also
Ans. 14–15.
Based on the record, the Examiner has not explained sufficiently how
Rimmer teaches or suggests
generating a packet comprising a plurality of flits having
different formats, the formats configured to implement different
communication protocols, including at least one low-latency flit
configured for low latency transmission over the
communications channel, and a plurality of bandwidth flits,
each bandwidth flit configured for high bandwidth throughput
over the same communications channel

as claim 1 recites. Accordingly, Appellant has persuaded us of error in the
rejection of (1) independent claim 1, (2) independent claims 12 and 18,
which recite commensurate limitations, and (3) the dependent claims for
similar reasons.

Appeal 2019-000728
Application 14/742,007

9
CONCLUSION
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§
Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1–22 103 Rimmer, Debbage 1–22

REVERSED