VMware, Inc.Download PDFPatent Trials and Appeals BoardAug 27, 20212020003765 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 27, 2021) Copy Citation 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. 15/174,376 06/06/2016 Adrian Marinescu C954 8171 152606 7590 08/27/2021 Olympic Patent Works PLLC 4979 Admiral Street Gig Harbor, WA 98332 EXAMINER LU, KEVIN X ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2199 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 08/27/2021 PAPER 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. PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte ADRIAN MARINESCU Appeal 2020-003765 Application 15/174,376 Technology Center 2100 Before, JOHN A. EVANS, JASON J. CHUNG, and JOYCE CRAIG, Administrative Patent Judges. CRAIG, 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 rejecting claims 1–20, which constitute all the claims pending in this application. See Non-Final Act. 1. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We REVERSE. 1 We use the term “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42 (2019). Appellant identifies the real party in interest as VMWARE, INC. Appeal Br. 1. Appeal 2020-003765 Application 15/174,376 2 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER The claims are directed to flow-control of shared computational resources in multi-processor computer systems and multi-core-processor- based systems. Spec. ¶ 1; Title. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 1. A flow-control component of a multi-processing-entity computer system, the flow-control component comprising: a shared computational resource; two or more local access pools, together comprising a distributed access pool, each local access pool uniquely associated with a processing entity; and a process or thread that accesses the shared computational resource when a local access pool associated with the processing entity on which the process or thread executes contains at least one shared-computational-resource access and when the process or thread first removes a shared- computational-resource access from the local access pool before accessing the shared computational resource. Appeal Br. 29 (Claims App.) (emphasis added to disputed limitation). REFERENCES The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is: Name Reference Date Simmons et al. (“Simmons”) US 6,574,654 B1 June 3, 2003 Nguyen US 2014/0108728 A1 Apr. 17, 2014 REJECTIONS Claims 1–20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) as indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. Non-Final Act. 3–5. Appeal 2020-003765 Application 15/174,376 3 Claims 1–7, 9–16, and 18–20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Simmons. Non-Final Act. 6–11. Claims 8 and 17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Simmons and Nguyen. Non-Final Act. 11–12. ANALYSIS Indefiniteness Rejection of Claims 1–20 The Examiner rejected claims 1–20 for indefiniteness under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) because: a. it is unclear what is meant by “a process or thread that accesses the shared. . . . when a local access pool associated with . . . and when the process or thread first . . .” because it is unclear whether the two “when” limitations are meant to be dependent and work in conjunction with each other to achieve “a process or thread that accesses the shared computational resource,” or whether a process or thread that accesses the shared computational resource occurs when either of the “when” actions is performed. b. it is unclear what is meant by “a process or thread that accesses the shared computational resource. . . .when the process or thread first removes a shared-computational-resource access from the local access pool before accessing the shared computational resource” because no part of the Specification describes an instance where the same process that calls to request access for the resource is dependent on that same thread calls to removes a shared-computational-resource access, see Fig. 15F and in contrast with Fig. 15G. c. it is unclear whether “a process or thread that accesses the shared computational resource when a local access pool associated with the processing entity on which the process or thread executes contains at least one shared-computational- resource access” means “a process or thread that accesses the shared computational resource” is predicated on the occurrence (when) that local access pool already accessed it, or that “a Appeal 2020-003765 Application 15/174,376 4 process or thread that accesses the shared computational resource,” the access itself, is represented as executed when the local access pool contains at least one shared-computational- resource access. Non-Final Act. 3–4. “[I]f a claim is amenable to two or more plausible claim constructions, the USPTO is justified in requiring the applicant to more precisely define the metes and bounds of the claimed invention by holding the claim . . . indefinite.” Ex parte Miyazaki, 89 USPQ2d 1207, 1211 (BPAI 2008) (precedential); accord Ex parte McAward, Appeal No. 2015-006416, 2017 WL 3669566, at *4 (PTAB 2017) (precedential). Appellant has persuaded us that claim 1 is not amenable to two or more plausible claim constructions. We agree with Appellant that, in claim 1, a process or thread can access the shared computational resource only when the conditions specified by both of the two “when” clauses occur. See Appeal Br. 15. We are also persuaded that the Specification describes that the instruction on line 1558 of Appellant’s Figure 15F removes a shared- computational-resource access pool, and the instruction on line 1560 of Figure 15F determines whether there was at least one shared-computational- resource access in the local access pool prior to removal of a shared- computational-resource access from the local access pool carried out in the preceding instruction, on line 1558. Id. at 16–17; see also Spec. ¶¶ 75, 82. For these reasons, we are persuaded that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1–20 for indefiniteness. Accordingly, we reverse the Examiner’s § 112(b) rejection of claims 1–20. Appeal 2020-003765 Application 15/174,376 5 Obviousness Rejections of Claims 1–20 With regard to representative claim 1, Appellant has persuaded us that the Examiner’s reliance on the teachings of Simmons is in error. In particular, we are persuaded that paragraphs 18 and 19 of Simmons, relied on by the Examiner, do not teach or suggest the last limitation recited in claim 1, italicized above. In particular, the Examiner found Simmons teaches that “when a shadow lock exists, it means there is at least one shared computation- resource access as shadow lock for specific modes are removed when no thread on the node wants to access the shared resource in the particular mode.” Non-Final Act. (citing Simmons cols. 18: 48–57, 19: 31–42). Appellant argues that Simmons is directed to a lock-based contention control system, which is distinguishable from the invention claimed in claim 1. Appeal Br. 22–23. Appellant argues that the Simmons Abstract “clearly indicates that the shadow resource objects grant locks, while the current application states that locks are not used when the ‘local access pools’” contain a sufficient number of shared-computer-resource accesses. Id. at 24. Appellant further argues that Figure 3 of Simmons, relied on by the Examiner, is insufficient to support the Examiner’s finding that a shadow resource object teaches or suggests a “local access pool,” as recited in claim 1. Appellant has persuaded us that the Examiner erred. We agree with Appellant that: In paragraphs [0071-0074] [of the Specification], with reference to Figures 14A-C, which illustrate a traditional approach to flow control of a resource in a multi-processing-entity computer system, the current application provides a detailed explanation Appeal 2020-003765 Application 15/174,376 6 of why locks, which are blocking mechanisms used to single- thread access to a computational resource, result in significant inefficiencies in a multi-core processor or other multi- processing-entity environment. Then, in paragraphs [0075- 0085], with reference to Figures 15A-M, the current application discusses the currently disclosed non-blocking approach that avoids most of these inefficiencies by providing local access pools to each of the processing entities, so that a processing entity can retrieve access rights, or accesses, from the local access pool assigned to the processing entity without using locks or other synchronization mechanisms. Reply Br. 22. Additionally, the Specification describes that if “a processor or thread is not able to gain access to the computational resource, contention control and exclusive locking by cache controllers may result from an attempt to redistribute accesses among processing entities, “but this is generally an infrequent occurrence.” Spec. ¶ 75. The Examiner has not explained sufficiently why, in the cited portions, Simmons’s use of locks for controlling access to a shared computational resource teaches or suggests the disputed limitation in light of the Specification’s description of the claimed flow-control component as distinguishable from a lock-based contention control system. Because we are persuaded that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1, and grouped claims 2–7, 9–16, and 18–20, we reverse the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of those claims. We also reverse the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of claims 8 and 17, as the Examiner does not find that Nguyen teaches or suggests the disputed limitation not found in Simmons. CONCLUSION The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1–20 is reversed. Appeal 2020-003765 Application 15/174,376 7 DECISION SUMMARY In summary: Claim(s) Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 1–20 112(b) Indefiniteness 1–20 1–7, 9–16, 18–20 103 Simmons 1–7, 9–16, 18–20 8, 17 103 Simmons, Nguyen 8, 17 Overall Outcome 1–20 REVERSED Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation