IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`PATENT
`
`Applicants
`Application No.
`Filed
`For
`
`Jefferson Eugene Owen et al.
`13/655,152
`October 18, 2012
`ELECTRONIC SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR
`SELECTIVELY ALLOWING ACCESS TO A SHARED
`MEMORY
`
`Examiner
`Art Unit
`Docket No.
`Date
`
`Hau H. Nguyen
`2677
`850063.553C8
`September 3, 2013
`
`Mail Stop Amendment
`Commissioner for Patents
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, VA 22313-14 50
`
`Commissioner for Patents:
`
`AMENDMENT
`
`In response to the Office Action dated April1, 2013, please extend the period of
`
`time for response two months, to expire on September 1, 2013. Enclosed are a Petition for an
`
`Extension ofTime and the requisite fee. Please amend the application as follows:
`
`Amendments to the Claims are reflected in the listing of claims which begins on
`
`page 2 of this paper.
`
`Remarks begin on page 5 of this paper.
`
`Page 1 of 12
`
` ZTE EXHIBIT 1016
`
`

`
`Application No. 13/655,152
`Reply to Office Action dated April 1, 2013
`
`Amendments to the Claims:
`
`This listing of claims will replace all prior versions, and listings, of claims in the
`
`application:
`
`1.
`
`(Currently Amended) A computing device, comprising:
`
`a central processing unit (CPU);
`
`core logic coupled by a first bus to the CPU, the core logic having a first memory
`
`interface coupleable to a shared main memory;
`
`a cache memory coupled to the CPU by the first bus;
`
`a decoder/encoder coupleable to the shared main memory via a second memory
`
`interface;
`
`an arbiter configured to receive shared memory access requests from the CPU and
`
`the decoder/encoder, the arbiter configured to arbitrate access to the shared main memory; and
`
`a memory bus coupled to the first memory controller int~r.f§,~~~.and the second
`
`memory controller interface, the memory bus configured to pass first data in real time between
`
`the shared main memory and the CPU via the first memory interface, the memory bus configured
`
`to pass second data in real time between the shared main memory and the decoder/encoder.
`
`2.
`
`(Original) The computing device according to claim 1 wherein the
`
`computing device is a computer.
`
`3.
`
`(Original) The computing device according to claim 1 wherein the core
`
`logic comprises:
`
`a Peripheral Component Interconnect (PCI) core logic device.
`
`4.
`
`(Original) The computing device according to claim 1 wherein the core
`
`logic comprises:
`
`an Accelerated Graphics Port (AGP); and
`
`an Enhanced Integrated Device Electronics (EIDE) interface.
`
`2
`
`Page 2 of 12
`
`

`
`Application No. 13/655,152
`Reply to Office Action dated April 1, 2013
`
`5.
`
`(Original) The computing device according to claim 4, comprising:
`
`a hard disk drive; and
`
`an optical disk drive, wherein the hard disk drive and the optical disk drive are
`
`coupled to the core logic via the EIDE interface.
`
`6.
`
`(Original) The computing device according to claim 1 wherein the
`
`memory bus is capable of having a bandwidth at least two times greater than the amount of data
`
`carried to the decoder/encoder when the decoder/encoder decodes in real time.
`
`7.
`
`(Original) The computing device according to claim 6 wherein the
`
`memory bus is capable of carrying up to 400Mbytes/s.
`
`8.
`
`(Original) The computing device according to claim 1 wherein the arbiter
`
`is coupled to the second memory interface and the arbiter and second memory interface are
`
`integrated with the decoder/encoder.
`
`9.
`
`(Original) The computing device according to claim 1 wherein the
`
`decoder/encoder includes a DMA engine coupled to the second memory interface, the DMA
`
`engine configured to control data bursts between the decoder/encoder and the shared main
`
`memory via the second memory interface.
`
`10.
`
`(Original) The computing device according to claim 9 wherein the DMA
`
`engine controls priority of data bursts between the decoder/encoder and the shared main memory
`
`via the second memory interface.
`
`11.
`
`(Original) The computing device according to claim 1, comprising:
`
`refresh logic coupled via a memory interface, the refresh logic configured to
`
`maintain the contents of the shared main memory.
`
`3
`
`Page 3 of 12
`
`

`
`Application No. 13/655,152
`Reply to Office Action dated April 1, 2013
`
`12.
`
`(Currently Amended) The computing device according to claim 11
`
`wherein the refresh logic, the arbiter, and the second memory controller interface are
`
`monolithically integrated into the decoder/encoder.
`
`13.
`
`(Original) The computing device according to claim 4, comprising:
`
`a graphics accelerator coupled to the core logic via an Accelerated Graphics Port
`
`(AGP) bus and a Peripheral Component Interconnect (PCI) bus; and
`
`a local area network (LAN) controller coupled to the core logic via the PCI bus.
`
`14.
`
`(Original) The computing device according to claim 13, comprising:
`
`a frame buffer coupled to the graphics accelerator via a frame buffer memory bus;
`
`and
`
`an audio codec coupled to the graphics accelerator.
`
`15.
`
`(Currently Amended) The computing device according to claim -H--14
`
`wherein the frame buffer memory bus is memory bus coupled to the first memory controller
`
`interface and the second memory controller interface.
`
`16.
`
`(Original) The computing device according to claim 13 wherein the
`
`graphics accelerator is configured to perform video scaling and color space conversions.
`
`17.
`
`(Original) The computing device according to claim 1 wherein the
`
`decoder/encoder is a cell in an integrated circuit and the CPU is a cell in the integrated circuit.
`
`4
`
`Page 4 of 12
`
`

`
`Application No. 13/655,152
`Reply to Office Action dated April 1, 2013
`
`REMARKS
`
`This communication is being filed in response to an Office Action having a
`
`mailing date of April1, 2013. Claims 1, 12, and 15 are amended. No new matter is added, and
`
`all claims are believed in condition for allowance. Upon entry of the amendments herewith,
`
`claims 1-17 remain pending.
`
`I. Information Disclosure Statement (IDS)
`
`An IDS submitted on December 28, 2012 was considered by the Examiner except
`
`for one reference to Hsing, "The Challenge ofVLSI Technology to Low Bit Rate Video," pages
`
`164-168 because there was no date or year provided.
`
`The Hsing reference was published on pages 164-168 ofVLSI Technology,
`
`Systems and Applications, 1989. Proceedings of Technical Papers from the 1989 International
`
`Symposium on May 17-19, 1989. A copy of the reference is resubmitted herewith along with an
`
`IDS providing a date of the reference and the requisite fee. It is kindly requested that an initialed
`
`copy of the IDS be provided with the next communication so as to confirm that the reference
`
`listed therein has been entered and considered.
`
`II. Telephone Interview Summary
`
`A telephone interview was held between the attorney of record (Thomas J.
`
`Satagaj) and the Examiner on August 29, 2013. The substance of the interview is provided
`
`below:
`
`Mr. Satagaj and the Examiner discussed certain cases in family of the present
`
`case, references applied in the present case, and certain features in the claims of the present case
`
`by telephone on August 29, 2013 in detail. The Examiner expressed a willingness to study the
`
`Remarks made herein and further consider the case upon submission of a formal written reply to
`
`the present final Office Action.
`
`As discussed in detail herein, certain features of independent claim 1 are not
`
`disclosed in the applied references. Accordingly, it is respectfully submitted that independent
`
`claim 1 is patentable. Dependent claims 2-17 are patentably distinguished over the applied
`
`5
`
`Page 5 of 12
`
`

`
`Application No. 13/655,152
`Reply to Office Action dated April 1, 2013
`
`references for at least the same reasons as their respective independent base claims, as well as for
`
`other novel and non-obvious features recited therein. It is therefore kindly requested that the
`
`rejections be reconsidered and withdrawn.
`
`III. Objections to the Claims and Additional Minor Errors
`
`Objections to claims 1 and 15 identify a lack of antecedent basis, respectively, for
`
`the recitation, "the first memory controller and the second memory controller," and the
`
`recitation, "the frame buffer memory bus." The informalities derive from typographical errors,
`
`which are corrected in the Listing of Claims section herein. An additional informality
`
`discovered in claim 12 is also corrected. Specifically, the word "interface" now replaces the
`
`word "controller" in claims 1, 12, and 15. Claim 15 is also now properly dependent on claim 13.
`
`Withdrawal of the objections is respectfully requested.
`
`IV. Discussion of the claims and cited references
`
`Claims 1-3, 8-10, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
`
`unpatentable over Gulick et al. (U.S. Patent No. 5,812,800) in view of Bowes et al. (U.S. Patent
`
`No. 5,546,547).
`
`Claims 4, 5, and 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
`
`unpatentable over Gulick and Bowes in view ofKikinis et al. (U.S. Patent No. 5,805,921) in
`
`further view of A GP Spec, (Accelerated Graphics Port Interface Specification, Version 1.0, Intel
`
`Corporation).
`
`Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Gulick
`
`in view of Bowes in view of Kikinis in view of AGP Spec and in further view of Potu (U.S.
`
`Patent No.5, 977,947).
`
`Claim 6 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over
`
`Gulick in view of Bowes and in further view of LaBerge (U.S. Patent No. 5,771,358).
`
`Claim 6 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over
`
`Gulick in view of Bowes and in further view of Derrick et al. (U.S. Patent No. 5,983,025).
`
`6
`
`Page 6 of 12
`
`

`
`Application No. 13/655,152
`Reply to Office Action dated April 1, 2013
`
`In the discussion presented herein, pages, columns, line numbers, paragraphs, and
`
`the like of the present application and applied references will be identified in abbreviated form.
`
`For example, Page 1 (or Column 1 ), Lines 3-15 of an applied reference will be called out as
`
`Reference 1 :3-15. Similarly, the twenty-fifth paragraph of an applied reference will be called out
`
`as Reference [0025].
`
`Disclosed embodiments of the invention are discussed herein in comparison to the
`
`applied references. The discussion of the disclosed embodiments and the discussion of the
`
`differences between the disclosed embodiments and the subject matter described in the applied
`
`references do not define the scope or interpretation of any of the claims. Instead, such discussed
`
`differences merely help the Examiner to appreciate important claim distinctions discussed
`
`thereafter. For the reasons set forth below, these rejections are respectfully traversed. It is
`
`therefore kindly requested that the rejections be reconsidered and withdrawn.
`
`V. Non-obviousness oflndependent Claim 1
`
`Turning to the claims, the structure of independent claim 1 is not rendered
`
`obvious by Gulick and Bowes because the applied references fail to implicitly or explicitly teach
`
`or suggest every element and feature recited in claim 1. MPEP § 2143.03 instructs that a claim
`
`cannot be obvious when a limitation of the claim is entirely absent from the prior art. Rather
`
`than establishing that each recitation of claim 1 is taught, the Office Action merely draws
`
`elements from the references and combines them in a way contrary to the suggestions in the
`
`references themselves.
`
`Claim 1 recites, inter alia, a CPU coupled to a shared memory via a memory bus
`
`and a decoder/encoder coupled to the same shared memory via the same memory bus. The
`
`memory bus is configured to pass data in real time between the shared memory and the CPU via
`
`a first memory interface. The memory bus is configured to pass data in real time between the
`
`shared memory and the decoder/encoder via a second memory interface.
`
`7
`
`Page 7 of 12
`
`

`
`Application No. 13/655,152
`Reply to Office Action dated April 1, 2013
`
`The Office Action identifies the Gulick reference, which describes a computer
`
`system having a real-time bus and a multimedia memory. Gulick at Title. As discussed herein,
`
`however, Gulick falls short.
`
`In FIG. 1, Gulick illustrates a CPU 102, a main memory 110, and three PCI
`
`devices 142, 144, 146 coupled to each other via a real-time (multimedia) bus 130. In the FIG. 1
`
`case, since there is only a single memory, multimedia data for Gulick's PCI devices and code and
`
`data for Gulick's CPU will all be stored in the main memory 110. In order to retrieve the
`
`multimedia data, Gulick's PCI devices must communicate with the main memory using PCI bus
`
`120, which is not a real time bus. Gulick at 5:29-38. Instead, the PCI devices 142, 144, 146
`
`must obtain bus mastership, which consumes PCI cycles. !d. The PCI devices in Gulick's FIG.
`
`1 may communicate data between each other in real-time using the multimedia bus 130, but this
`
`is different from claim 1, which calls out a memory bus configured to pass data in real time
`
`between a shared main memory and a decoder/encoder.
`
`In FIG. 3, Gulick illustrates an alternative to his embodiment of FIG. 1. In FIG. 3,
`
`Gulick adds a second bus from his chipset logic 1 06A so that his CPU will have access to the
`
`real time bus 130A. Gulick at 6:36-58. Even though the embodiment of FIG. 3 permits Gulick's
`
`CPU to communicate directly with his PCI Devices 142A, 144A, and 146A, the PCI devices
`
`must still obtain non-real-time bus mastership in order to receive data from main memory 110.
`
`Thus, Gulick's embodiment of FIG. 3 also falls short and fails to teach a memory bus configured
`
`to pass data in real time between a shared main memory and a decoder/encoder.
`
`Gulick illustrates his final embodiment in FIG. 5. In FIG. 5, Gulick adds a
`
`dedicated multimedia memory 160. Multimedia data can be stored in either main memory 110
`
`or multimedia memory 160. Gulick at FIG. 8, 502, 9:38-45, and 10:26-29. In addition, CPU
`
`code and data may be stored in either main memory 110 or multimedia memory 160. Gulick at
`
`9:52-67. Accordingly, there are some situations where Gulick uses stores both multimedia data
`
`and CPU code and data in main memory 110, and there are other situations where Gulick stores
`
`both multimedia data and CPU code and data in multimedia memory 160.
`
`The first situation of FIG. 5 where multimedia data and CPU code and data are
`
`stored in the main memory 110 has already been addressed. That is, the situation in FIG. 5 when
`
`8
`
`Page 8 of 12
`
`

`
`Application No. 13/655,152
`Reply to Office Action dated April 1, 2013
`
`multimedia data and CPU code and data are stored in the main memory 110 is identical to the
`
`situation in Gulick's FIG. 1. Claim 1 is not taught in FIG. 5 when multimedia data and CPU
`
`code and data are stored in the main memory 11 0 because there is no memory bus configured to
`
`pass data in real time between shared main memory 110 and a PCI device 142B, 144B, 164B.
`
`With respect to the second FIG. 5 situation, where multimedia data and CPU code
`
`and data are stored in the multimedia memory160, Gulick describes two schemes to supply data
`
`to his CPU and his PCI devices; neither of which teaches the features of claim 1. In a first
`
`scheme, Gulick uses two busses to access the multimedia memory. A first bus (not named)
`
`couples Gulick's PCI bridge 106B to a PCI bus 120 to the multimedia memory 160. A second
`
`bus (not named) couples Gulick's multimedia memory 160 to the real time bus 130B to the
`
`multimedia devices 142B, 144B, 146B. Claim 1 is not taught in this scheme because Gulick
`
`requires two busses - a first bus to pass data between the shared memory and the CPU and a
`
`second bus to pass data between the shared memory and a PCI device.
`
`In a second scheme, Gulick uses arbitration logic 1 07B to arbitrate access to the
`
`multimedia memory. Gulick at 9:52-67. In this case, Gulick expressly states, with emphasis
`
`added, that "the CPU 102 is only granted access to the multimedia memory 160 during idle times
`
`or after a certain starvation period." Thus, not only does Gulick fail to illustrate the claimed
`
`memory bus, Gulick expressly teaches away from claim 1 by implementing either two memory
`
`busses or permitting at least one of his devices to be starved when he uses only a single memory
`
`bus.
`
`As pointed out in the Office Action at Page 3 and with respect to Gulick,
`
`"multimedia memory 160 is not entirely part of the main memory." To address this
`
`shortcoming, the Office Action applies Bowes at 2:52-3:2 and 4:49-67. This is incorrect because
`
`Bowes, like Gulick, also fails to teach a memory bus configured to pass data in real time between
`
`a shared memory and a CPU and further configured to pass data in real time between the shared
`
`memory and a decoder/encoder.
`
`The Bowes reference teaches a memory bus arbiter for a computer system having
`
`a DSP co-processor. Bowes at Title. In Bowes' system, a DSP 20 resides on a computer
`
`system's memory bus 110 and shares a main memory system 14 with three devices- a CPU 10,
`
`9
`
`Page 9 of 12
`
`

`
`Application No. 13/655,152
`Reply to Office Action dated April 1, 2013
`
`an I/0 interface 30, and a NuBus controller 40. Bowes at Abstract and FIG. 2. In contrast to
`
`claim 1, however, Bowes only teaches a single device operable in real time.
`
`The problem solved by Bowes is not targeted at bandwidth, it is targeted toward
`
`cost. Bowes at 2:37-42. Bowes' system addresses the cost problem by eliminating an expensive,
`
`dedicated SRAM. Bowes at 2:52-56. Eliminating the dedicated SRAM, however, and sharing a
`
`single main memory, causes other problems for Bowes' system. When Bowes eliminated the
`
`dedicated SRAM, his system lost the ability to service both his DSP and his other devices in real(cid:173)
`
`time. Instead, the system created by Bowes must be "finely tuned" and can only run one of his
`
`devices in real-time. Bowes at 7:61-64. Bowes chose to prioritize his DSP, and rather than run
`
`his other devices in real-time, Bowes gives the other devices only a "reasonable" access to the
`
`memory. Bowes at FIG. 3 and 8:36-45.
`
`In FIG. 2, Bowes illustrates a memory controller and arbiter (MCA) 200. The
`
`MCA 200, which is illustrated in more detail in FIG. 4, follows a priority scheme illustrated in
`
`FIG. 3. Bowes at 8:24-56. In the priority scheme, the bandwidth to the main memory 14 is
`
`divided into 10 slots. !d. Since DSP 20 requires the largest amount ofbandwidth, the DSP is
`
`give 5 of the 10 slots to support real-time operation. !d. The remaining 5 slots are divided
`
`amongst the CPU, the I/0 Interface 30, and the NuBus controller 40. Rather than having real(cid:173)
`
`time operation in these other devices, Bowes expressly states that these other devices are merely
`
`given "reasonable bandwidth." !d.
`
`At 9:21-53, Bowes goes on to describe a further problem created by the
`
`elimination of his dedicated SRAM. That is, in Bowes' system, "it is necessary to limit the
`
`overall total DSP bus ownership period in a given arbitration loop so as not to starve the other
`
`bus masters who need to own the memory bus." !d. Bowes implements this limit with a DSP
`
`watchdog timer 241, which only permits the DSP 20 to perform a finite number ofback-to-back
`
`cycles in each DSP arbitration slot. !d. When a predetermined time limit is reached where the
`
`DSP has owned the memory bus and where the other devices (CPU 10, I/0 interface 30, NuBus
`
`controller 40) have not been allowed to occur, the watchdog timer 241 will fire, and the DSP will
`
`be blocked for the remainder of the present arbitration loop. Bowes at 9:45-53 and 10: 41-51.
`
`10
`
`Page 10 of 12
`
`

`
`Application No. 13/655,152
`Reply to Office Action dated April 1, 2013
`
`Thus it is shown that not only does Bowes teach a system where 3 of his 4 devices
`
`cannot run in real-time (i.e., they are merely "not starved), Bowes does not even fully let his
`
`prioritized DSP 20 device run in true real time. Instead, Bowes finely tunes his system by
`
`prioritizing his DSP over all of the other devices. And even though the DSP has priority, the
`
`DSP may still lose its access to the shared bus when a watchdog timer fires and the other devices
`
`are granted "sufficient" access to the memory to keep them from being starved. Accordingly,
`
`Bowes also fails to teach a memory bus configured to pass data in real time between a shared
`
`memory and a CPU; the memory bus also configured to pass data in real time between the shared
`
`memory and a decoder/encoder.
`
`For at least the reason that claim 1 recites a memory bus having limitations absent
`
`from both Gulick and Bowes, claim 1 is patentable over the applied references. Reconsideration
`
`and withdrawal of the rejection to claim 1 is respectfully requested.
`
`VI. Dependent Claims in General
`
`Each dependent claim inherits the limitations of its respective base claim and all
`
`intervening claims. Therefore, allowance of the respective base claim compels allowance of all
`
`dependent claims. See, e.g., In reFine, 837 F.2d 1071 (Fed. Cir. 1988); MPEP § 2143.03.
`
`Accordingly, all dependent claims, including those that were referenced in the Office Action and
`
`not specifically referenced in the present response, are allowable for at least reasons of their
`
`respective base claims, as well as for the specific limitations recited in the dependent claims, and
`
`the rejections should be withdrawn.
`
`VII. Conclusion
`
`It is respectfully submitted that the pending claims are in condition for allowance.
`
`Any remarks in support of patentability of one claim should not be imputed to any other claim,
`
`even if similar terminology is used. Any remarks referring to only a portion of a claim should
`
`not be understood to base patentability on that portion; rather, patentability must rest on each
`
`claim taken as a whole. No acquiescence is made to any of the Examiner's rejections or any of
`
`11
`
`Page 11 of 12
`
`

`
`Application No. 13/655,152
`Reply to Office Action dated April 1, 2013
`
`the Examiner's assertions regarding what the applied reference shows or teaches, even if not
`
`expressly discussed herein.
`
`If the undersigned attorney has overlooked a relevant teaching in any of the
`
`references, the Examiner is requested to point out specifically where such teaching may be
`
`found. In light of the above amendments and remarks, Applicants respectfully submit that all
`
`pending claims are allowable. Applicants, therefore, respectfully request that the Examiner
`
`reconsider this application and timely allow all pending claims. The Examiner is encouraged to
`
`contact Mr. Satagaj by telephone at (206) 622-4900 to discuss the above and any other
`
`distinctions between the claims and the applied references, if desired. If the Examiner notes any
`
`informalities in the claims, the Examiner is encouraged to contact the undersigned by telephone
`
`to expediently correct such informalities.
`
`The Director is authorized to charge any additional fees due by way of this
`
`Amendment, or credit any overpayment, to our Deposit Account No. 19-1090. All of the claims
`
`remaining in the application are now clearly allowable. Favorable consideration and a Notice of
`
`Allowance are earnestly solicited.
`
`All of the claims remaining in the application are now clearly allowable.
`
`Favorable consideration and a Notice of Allowance are earnestly solicited.
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`SEED Intellectual Property Law Group PLLC
`
`/Thomas J. Satagaj/
`Thomas J. Satagaj
`Registration No. 62,391
`
`TJS:sg
`
`701 Fifth Avenue, Suite 5400
`Seattle, Washington 98104-7092
`Phone: (206) 622-4900
`Fax: (206) 682-6031
`
`2443572 l.DOC
`
`12
`
`Page 12 of 12