QUALCOMM Incorporated

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Sep 28, 2020

14626913 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Sep. 28, 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.
14/626,913 02/19/2015 Phil Joseph BOSTLEY III QC135206 2068
12371 7590 09/28/2020
Muncy, Geissler, Olds & Lowe, P.C./QUALCOMM
4000 Legato Road, Suite 310
Fairfax, VA 22033
EXAMINER
PARIKH, KALPIT
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2137
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/28/2020 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):
meo.docket@mg-ip.com
meo@mg-ip.com
ocpat_uspto@qualcomm.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte PHIL JOSEPH BOSTLEY III and
JAYA PRAKASH SUBRAMANIAM GANASAN
Appeal 2019-003173
Application 14/626,913
Technology Center 2100
Before SCOTT E. BAIN, MICHAEL T. CYGAN, and
STEPHEN E. BELISLE, Administrative Patent Judges.

BAIN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
decision to reject claims 1–3, 5–10, 12–19, and 21–34. Claims 4, 11, and 20
have been canceled. 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
Qualcomm Incorporated. Appeal Br. 3.
Appeal 2019-003173
Application 14/626,913

2
BACKGROUND
The Claimed Invention
The invention relates to computer processors, and more specifically,
to “cache coherence bus traffic control based on a processor’s role.” Spec.
¶ 1. Claims 1, 8, 17, and 26 are independent. Claim 1 is illustrative of the
invention and the subject matter in dispute, and is reproduced below:
1. A method for routing a coherence request to one or
more caches in a computing system, the method comprising:
determining one or more transaction attributes for a cache
coherence transaction from a requesting processor, wherein the
one or more transaction attributes includes at least a secure root
identifier (NS) for identifying a secure root in the requesting
processor, wherein the cache coherence transaction was
initiated by the secure root;
identifying a cachability domain and/or shareability
domain based on the one or more transaction attributes; and
routing the cache coherence transaction to one or more
caches in the identified cachability domain and/or shareability
domain.

Appeal Br. 13 (Claims Appendix) (emphases added).

References
The references relied upon by the Examiner are:
Name Reference Date
Heller, Jr. et al.
(“Heller”)
US 2004/0268044 A1 Dec. 30, 2004
Nguyen et al.
(“Nguyen”)
US 2011/0055844 A1 Mar. 3, 2011
Fullerton US 2011/0126265 A1 May 26, 2011

Appeal 2019-003173
Application 14/626,913

3
The Rejections on Appeal
Claims 1–3, 5, 6, 8–10, 12, 13, 15–19, 21, 22, 24–29, and 31–34 stand
rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Heller and Fullerton.
Final Act. 2–5.
Claims 7, 14, 23, and 30 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Heller, Fullerton, and Nguyen. Final Act. 5–6.
DISCUSSION
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellant’s
arguments presented in this appeal. On the record before us, we cannot
sustain the Examiner’s rejections.
Appellant argues the Examiner erred in finding the prior art teaches or
suggests transaction attributes that include a “secure root identifier (NS) for
identifying a secure root in the requesting processor,” and a “cache
coherence transaction . . . initiated by the secure root,” as recited in claim 1.
Appeal Br. 6–8 (emphasis added); Reply Br. 2–4. According to Appellant,
the Examiner relies on Fullerton’s teaching of a “trusted domain identifier”
as satisfying the “secure root” limitation of claim 1. Appellant argues,
however, that the trusted domain identifier cannot be the “secure root” of
claim 1 because the trusted domain identifier does not (among other things)
“initiate” the cache coherence transaction (or even identify what initiated the
cache coherence transaction). Appeal Br. 6. Appellant also argues the
Examiner erred in finding a rationale to combine the references. We need
not address Appellant’s rationale to combine argument, because we are
persuaded the Examiner erred in finding the prior art teaches a “cache
coherence transaction . . . initiated by the secure root.”
Appeal 2019-003173
Application 14/626,913

4
The Examiner relies on Fullerton’s description of “partitions” as
teaching or suggesting the disputed claim limitations. Ans. 4–5 (citing
Fullerton Fig. 3 (element 302), ¶ 13); see also Final Act. 3 (citing Fullerton
Fig. 4 (element 402), ¶¶ 22, 24). Figure 3 is a flowchart depicting steps to
“configure plurality of isolated domains” and “assign each isolated domain a
unique domain identifier.” Fullerton Fig. 3. Step 302 states, “[a]ssociate
resources with each isolated domain and store as permissions to access
physical addresses of resources.” Id. Figure 4, another flow chart, states at
step 402 “[h]ardware compares domain identifier of instruction with
permissions.” Paragraph 13 states, a “processor core may be logically
partitioned into a plurality of domains,” and paragraphs 22 and 24 describe
“access[ing] . . . shared resources.” Id. at ¶¶ 13, 22, 24.
The Examiner does not explain, on this record, how any of the
foregoing discussion teaches a secure root identifier that initiates a cache
coherence transaction, as recited in claim 1. Even if we accept the
Examiner’s finding that the domain identifiers of Fullerton are “secure root
identifiers” (claim 1), the Examiner has not identified any teaching as to the
“initiate” limitation of claim 1. As Appellant argues, the Examiner’s
reliance on the “domain” identified in paragraph 13 of Fullerton (and
subsequently discussed in the other passages cited by the Examiner) refers
merely “to peripherals, memory space, etc., none of which are described as
initiat[ing]” the “transaction” (operation or code) recited in claim 1. Appeal
Br. 7.
Accordingly, we are persuaded the Examiner erred in rejecting
claim 1. For the same reasons, we are persuaded of error regarding the
remaining claims on appeal, all of which include the same disputed
Appeal 2019-003173
Application 14/626,913

5
limitation (or depend from a claim that does). We, therefore, do not sustain
the obviousness rejections of claims 1–3, 5–10, 12–19, and 21–34.
CONCLUSION
We reverse the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1–3, 5–10, 12–
19, and 21–34.
SUMMARY
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§
Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1–3, 5, 6, 8–
10, 12, 13,
15–19, 21,
22, 24–29,
31–34
103 Heller, Fullerton 1–3, 5, 6, 8–
10, 12, 13,
15–19, 21,
22, 24–29,
31–34
7, 14, 23, 30 103 Heller, Fullerton,
Nguyen
7, 14, 23, 30
Total
Outcome
1–3, 5–10,
12–19, 21–
34

REVERSED