19-23-2995
`
`01:10pm
`
`Fran-HEM a HARTSOH
`
`nnmsazz
`
`7-535 mamas
`
`F-ass
`
`instantiated functional units and said second 91 gig instantiated Emotional units are
`
`within 3 [tested loop of said glwlation.
`
`Please faxrfomard a copy of this to Examiner Eric Coieman at 1—571-273-8300 as soon
`
`as possible.
`
`ms-mma.m1n
`
`PAGE 414' ROW AT 192192995 3:99:99 PM [Eastem Daylight Time] ‘ SVRfllSPTD-EFXRF-SHS ‘ DHIS:2?39399‘ (18191319949592? DURATION (M-ss):91-32
`
`Petitioner Microsoft Corporation - Ex. 1002, p. 209
`
`Petitioner Microsoft Corporation - EX. 1002, p. 209
`
`

`

`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
`Unlmi Slates Paton! and Trademark Office
`Adams: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
`9.0. 3m: I450
`Ma. Virginia 223134450
`wwusplmguv
`
`APPLICATION NO.
`
`FILING DATE
`
`FIRST NAMED INVENTOR.
`
`ATKORNEY DOCKET NO.
`
`CONFIRMATION N0.
`
`101235‘313
`
`lDBlI’ZDUZ
`
`Jon M. Huppcnlhal
`
`SRCOIS
`
`I420
`
`HOGAN & HARTSON LLP
`ONE TABOR CENTER, SUITE 1500
`1200 SEVENTEENTH sr
`DENVER, CO 80202
`
`COLEMAN, ERJC
`
`2 I 83
`DATE MAILED: l0}? WZDOG
`
`Please find below andfor attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.
`
`PTO-90C (Rev. | MD)
`
`Petitioner Microsoft Corporation - Ex. 1002, p. 210
`
`Petitioner Microsoft Corporation - EX. 1002, p. 210
`
`

`

`.
`lnterwew Summary
`
`10l285.318
`Examiner
`
`HUPPENTHAL ET AL.
`Art Unit
`
`Application No.
`
`Applicantts}
`
`Eric Coleman
`
`2183
`
`All participants (applicant. applicant's representative. PTO personnel}:
`
`(1) Eric Coleman.
`
`(3)0avid E. Caiiga.
`
`(2) Michael Madensen {RegNo 46.9011.
`
`(4)
`
`.
`
`Date of Interview: 24 October 2006.
`
`bJCI Video Conference
`Type: aux] Telephonic
`c}[] Personal [copy given to: DC] applicant
`
`2):] applicant's representative]
`
`Exhibit shown or demonstration conducted:
`If Yes. brief description:
`
`d)|:l Yes
`
`e)® No.
`
`Claim(s) discussed: 1.
`
`Identification of prior art discussed: Dehon and Khan references.
`
`Agreement with respect to the claims til] was reached. 91D was not reached. ME NlA.
`
`Substance of Interview including description of the general nature of what was agreed to if an agreement was
`reached. or any other comments: Counsel and Examiner and Agglicant discussed the prior art the claimed and
`disclosed invention. and a proposed claim change. Counsel indicated the claims would be amended in a soon to be
`filed response.
`
`(A fuller description, if necessary. and a copy of the amendments which the examiner agreed would render the claims
`allowable. if available. must be attached. Also. where no copy of the amendments that would render the claims
`allowable is available. a summary thereof must be attached.)
`
`-THE FORMAL WRI‘I‘I‘EN REPLY TO THE LAST OFFICE ACTION MUST iNCLUDE THE SUBSTANCE OF THE
`INTERVIEW. (See MPEP Section 713.04).
`It a reply to the last Office action has already been filed. APPLICANT IS
`GIVEN A NON-EXTENDABLE PERIOD OF THE LONGER OF ONE MONTH OR THIRTY DAYS FROM THIS
`INTERVIEW DATE, OR THE MAILING DATE OF THIS INTERVIEW SUMMARY FORM. WHICHEVER IS LATER. TO
`FILE A STATEMENT OF THE SUBSTANCE OF THE INTERVIEW. See Summary of Record of Interview
`requirements on reverse side or on attached sheet.
`
`
`
`Examiner Note: You must sign this ton-n unless it is an
`
`Attachment to a signed Office action.
`US. Patent and Trademark Office
`PTOL-éta (Rev. 04-03}
`
`~ fig
`
`ERIC COLEMAN
`“RIMARY EXAMI
`"ER
`Examiner‘s signature. if required
`.
`
`Interview Summary
`
`Paper No. 20051024
`
`Petitioner Microsoft Corporation - EX. 1002, p. 211
`
`Petitioner Microsoft Corporation - Ex. 1002, p. 211
`
`

`

`Summary of Record of Interview Requirements
`Manual of Patent Examining Procedure {MPEP}, Section T1 3-04» Substance of Interview Must be Made of Record
`A complete written statement as to the substance ol any tece-to-lece. video conference. or telephone interview with negard to an application must be made at record in the
`application whether or not an agreement with the examiner was reached at the interview.
`
`Title 31' Code of Federal Regulations {CPR} § 1.1331ntienrtews
`Paragraph lb}
`tn every instance where reconsideration is requested in view of an interview with an examiner. a complete written statement of the reasons presented at the interview as
`warranting favorable action must be filed by the applicant An interview does not remove the necessTfy for reply to Office action as specified In 555 1.111. 1.135. (35 U.S.C. 132)
`
`37 CFR §1.2 Business to be transacted in writing.
`All business with the Patent or Trademark Office should be transacted in writing. The personal attendance of applicants or their eltomeys or agents at the Patent and
`Trademark Office is unnecessary. The action of the Patent and Trademark Office will be based exclusively on [be written record in the Office. No attention will be paid to
`any alleged oral promise. stipulation. or understanding in relation to which there is disagreement or doubt.
`
`
`The action of the Patent and Trademark Oifioe cannot be based exclusively on the written record in the Office if that record is itself
`incomplete through the failure to record the substance of intenfiews.
`it is the responsibility of the applicant or the attorney or agent to make the substance of an interview of record in the application file. unless
`the examiner indicates he or she will do so._ It is the examiners responsibility to see that such a record is made and to correct material inaccuracies
`which bear directly on the question of patentabiiity.
`Examiners must complete an Interview Summary Form for each interview held more a matter of substance has been discussed during the
`interview by checking the appropriate boxes and filling in the blanks. Discussions regarding only procedural matters. directed solely to restriction
`requirements for which intenfiew recordation is otherwise provided for in Section 812.01 of the Manual of Patent Examining Procedure. or pointing
`out typographical errors or unreadable script in Office actions or the like. are excluded from the interview recordalion procedures below. Where the
`substance of an inlenriew is completely recorded in an Examiners Amendment. no separate Interview Summary Record is required.
`The Interview Summary Form shall be given an appropriate Paper No.. placed in the right hand portion of the file. and listed on the
`'Conlents” section of the file wrapper.
`In a personal intenfiew. a duplicate of the Form is given to the applicant (or attorney or agent) at the
`conclusion of the interview.
`In the case of a telephone or video-conference interview. the copy is mailed to the applicant's correspondence address
`either with or prior to the next official communication. if additional correspondence from the examiner is not likely before an allowance or it other
`circumstances dictate, the Pooh should be mailed promptly after the interview rather than with the next official communication.
`
`The Form provides for recordation of the following information:
`— Application Number (Series Code and Serial Number)
`— Name of applicant
`— Name of examiner
`— Date of interview
`-. Type of interview (telephonic. video-conference, or personal]
`— Name of particlpantts) (applicant. attorney or agent, examiner. other PTO personnel. etc.)
`— An indication whether or not an exhibit was shown or a demonstration conducted
`- An identification of the specific prior art discussed
`— An Indication whether an agreement was reached and if so, a description of the general nature of the agreement [may be by
`attachment of a copy of amendments-or claims agreed as being allowable}. Note: Agreement as to allowabiiity is tentative and does
`not restrict further action by the examiner to the contrary.
`— The signature of the examiner who conducted the interview (if Form is not an attachment to a signed Office action)
`
`~
`
`it is desirable that the examiner orally remind the applicant of his or her obligation to record the substance of the interview of each case. It
`should be noted. however. that the lntenrlew Summary Form will not normally be considered a complete and proper recordalion of the intennew
`unless it includes. or is supplemented by the applicant or the examiner to include. all of the applicable items required below concerning the
`substance of the interview.
`-
`
`A complete and proper recordation of the substance of any interview should include at least the following applicable items:
`1) A brief description at the nature of any exhibit shown or any demonstration cond noted,
`2} an identification of the claims discussed.
`-
`3} an identification of the specific prior art discussed.
`4) an identification of the principal proposed amendments of a substantive nature discussed. unless these are already described on the
`Interview Summary Form completed by the Examiner,
`5) a brie! identification of the general thmst of the principal arguments presented to the examiner.
`(The identification of arguments need not be lengthy or elaborate. A verbatim or highly detailed description of the arguments is not
`required. The identification of the arguments is sufficient if the general nature or tthst of the principal arguments made to the
`examiner can be understood in the context of the application file. 0? course. the applicant may desire to emphasize and fully
`describe those arguments which he or she facts were or might be persuasive to the examiner.)
`6) a general indication of any other pertinent matters discussed. and
`-
`if) if appropriate, the general results or outcome of the intenriew unless already described in the interview Summary Form completed by
`the examiner.
`
`Examiners are expected to carefully review the applicant's record of the substance of an interview.
`accurate. the examiner will give the applicant an extendable one month time period to correct the record.
`
`If the record is not complete and
`
`Examiner to Check for Accuracy
`
`If the claims are allowable for other reasons of record. the examiner should send a letter setting forth the examiners version of the
`statement attributed to him or her.
`If the record is complete and accurate. the examiner should place the indication. 'lnterview Record OK” on the
`paper recording the substance of the interview along with the date and the examiner's initials.
`
`Petitioner Microsoft Corporation - Ex. 1002, p. 212
`
`Petitioner Microsoft Corporation - EX. 1002, p. 212
`
`

`

`IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`Client Matter No. 804040018
`EFS-Web
`
`
`
`Serial No. 101285.318
`
`Confirmation'No; 1420
`
`Application of: Jon M. Huppenthal and David E. Caiiga 'i Art Unit: 2133
`
`
`
`
`
`. Filed: OCIODBF 31- 2002
`Attorney Docket No. SRCO15
`For: MULTI-ADAPTIVE PROCESSING SYSTEMS
`AND TECHNIQUES FOR ENHANCING
`PARALLELISM AND PERFORMANCE OF
`COMPUTATIONAL FUNCTIONS
`
`
`Examiner: Coleman. Eric
`Customer No: 25235
`
`AMENDMENT
`
`MAIL STOP AMENDMENT
`Commissioner for Patents
`P.O. Box 1450
`
`Alexandria. VA 22313-1450
`
`Sir:
`
`in response to the office communication mailed August 17. 2006. please
`
`amend the above-identified application as follows:
`
`Amendments to the Claims are reflected in the listing of claims which begin
`
`on page 2 of this paper.
`
`Remarkszrguments begin on page 11 of this paper.
`
`"103 - GSCAIJMCOUGEE . 342?? Vt
`
`Petitioner Microsoft Corporation - Ex. 1002, p. 213
`
`Petitioner Microsoft Corporation - EX. 1002, p. 213
`
`

`

`Serial No. 10!285.318
`Reply to Office Action ofAugusi 17. 2006
`
`Amendments to the Ciaims:
`
`This listing of claims will replace all prior versions and listings of claims in the
`
`application:
`
`Listing of Claims:
`
`1.
`
`(currently amended) A method for data processing in a reconfigurable
`
`computing system, the reconfigurable computing system comprising at least one
`
`reconfigurable processor, the reconfigurable processor comprising a plurality of
`
`functional units, said method comprising:
`
`
`
`transforming an algorithm into a calculation that is systolically implemented
`
`by said reconfigurable comguting system at the at least one reconfigurable
`
`grocessor;
`
`instantiating at least two of said functional units at the at least one
`
`reconfigurable processor to perform said calculation wherein hewmam—only
`
`functional units needed to solve ans-WWW
`
`eathe calculation are instantiated and wherein each instantiated functional unit at
`
`the at least one reconfigurable processor sommanieatiens interconnects with each
`
`other instantiated functional unit at the at least one reconfigurable processor
`
` based on
`
`reconfigurable routing resources within the at least one reconfigurable processor as
`
`established at instantiation, and wherein systolically linked lines of code of said
`
`calculation are instantiated as clusters of functional units within the at least one
`
`reconfigurable grocessor;
`
`'-'.1C$-(‘-30¢Gdr000018- 5G2??'.r‘-
`
`2
`
`Petitioner Microsoft Corporation - Ex. 1002, p. 214
`
`Petitioner Microsoft Corporation - EX. 1002, p. 214
`
`

`

`Serial No. 10285318
`Reply to Office Action of August 17. 2006
`
`utilizing a first of said instantiated functional units to operate upon a
`
`subsequent data dimension of said calculation forming a first computational loop;
`
`and
`
`substantially concurrently utilizing a second of said instantiated functional
`
`units to operate upon a previous data dimension of said calculation forming a
`
`second computational loop wherein said systolic implementation of said calculation
`
`enables said first computational loop and said second computational loop execute
`
`concurrently and pass computed data seamlessly between said computational
`
`lo ps.
`
`2.
`
`(original) The method of claim 1 wherein said subsequent and previous data
`
`dimensions of said calculation comprise multiple vectors in said calculation.
`
`3.
`
`(original) The method of claim 1 wherein said subsequent and previous data
`
`dimensions of said calculation comprise multiple planes in said calculation.
`
`4.
`
`(original) The method of claim 1 wherein said subsequent and previous data
`
`dimensions of said calculation comprise multiple time steps in said calculation.
`
`5.
`
`(original) The method of claim 1 wherein said subsequent an previous data
`
`dimensions of said calculation comprise multiple grid points in said calculation.
`
`6.
`
`(original) The method of claim 1 wherein said calculation comprises a
`
`seismic imaging calculation.
`
`7.
`
`(original) The method of claim 1 wherein said calculation comprises a
`
`synthetic aperture radar imaging calculation.
`
`8.
`
`(original) The method of claim 1 wherein said calculation comprises a JPEG
`
`image compression calculation.
`
`-\'-.C$-550494-'(K300‘6- 34??? vi
`
`3
`
`Petitioner Microsoft Corporation - Ex. 1002, p. 215
`
`Petitioner Microsoft Corporation - EX. 1002, p. 215
`
`

`

`Serial No. 10i285.318
`Reply to Office Action of August 17, 2006
`
`9.
`
`(original) The method of claim 1 wherein said calculation comprises an
`
`MPEG image compression calculation.
`
`10.
`
`(original) The method of claim 1 wherein said calculation comprises a fluid
`
`flow calculation for a reservoir simulation.
`
`11.
`
`(original) The method of claim 1 wherein said calculation comprises a fluid
`
`flow calculation for weather prediction.
`
`12.
`
`(original) The method of claim 1 wherein said calculation comprises a fluid
`
`flow calculation for automotive applications.
`
`13.
`
`(original) The method of claim 1 wherein said calculation comprises a fluid
`
`flow calculation for aerospace applications.
`
`14.
`
`(original) The method of claim 1 wherein said calculation comprises a fluid
`
`flow calculation for an injection molding application.
`
`15.
`
`(previously presented) The method of claim 1 wherein instantiating includes
`
`establishing a stream communication connection between functional units.
`
`16.
`
`(original) The method of claim 1 wherein said calculation is comprises a
`
`structures calculation for structural analysis.
`
`17.
`
`(original) The method of claim 1 wherein said calculation comprises a search
`
`algorithm for an image search.
`
`18.
`
`(original) The method of claim 1 wherein said calculation comprises a search
`
`algorithm for data mining.
`
`19.
`
`(original) The method of claim 1 wherein said calculation comprises a
`
`financial modeling application.
`
`MES - MMHDOOGifi-Sdfr'? v1
`
`4
`
`Petitioner Microsoft Corporation - Ex. 1002, p. 216
`
`Petitioner Microsoft Corporation - EX. 1002, p. 216
`
`

`

`Serial No. 10!285.318
`Reply to Office Action ofAugust 17, 2006
`
`20.
`
`(original) The method of claim 1 wherein said calculation comprises an
`
`encryption algorithm.
`
`21.
`
`(canceled)
`
`22.
`
`(original) The method of claim 1 wherein said calculation comprises a
`
`genetic pattern matching function.
`
`23.
`
`(original) The method of claim 1 wherein said calculation comprises a protein
`
`folding function.
`
`24.
`
`(original) The method of claim 1 wherein said calculation comprises an
`
`organic structure interaction function.
`
`25.
`
`(original) The method of claim 1 wherein said calculation comprises a signal
`
`filtering application.
`
`26.
`
`(currently amended) A method for data processing in a reconfigurable
`
`computing system, the reconfigurable computing system comprising at least one
`
`reconfigurable processor comprising a pluraiity of functional units, said method
`
`comprising:
`
`transforming an algorithm into a calculation that is systolically implemented
`
`by said reconfigurable computing system at the at least one reconfigurable
`
`processor wherein systolicaily linked lines of code of said calculation are instantiated
`
`as walls of functional units within the at least one reconfigurable processor;
`
`defining a first systolic wall comprising rows of cells forming a subset of said
`
`plurality of functional units;
`
`computing at the at least one reconfigurable processor a value at each of
`
`said cells in at least a first row of said first systolic wall substantially concurrently;
`
`communicating said values between cells in said first row of said cells to
`
`mos . 080404-‘Fm0‘8- 342?? vs
`
`5
`
`Petitioner Microsoft Corporation - Ex. 1002, p. 217
`
`Petitioner Microsoft Corporation - EX. 1002, p. 217
`
`

`

`Serial No. 103285318
`Reply to Office Action of August 17. 2008
`
`produce updated values. wherein communicating said values is based on
`
`reconfigurable routing resources within the at least one reconfigurable processor
`
`
`
`communicating said updated values substantially concurrently to a second
`
`row of said first systolic wall, wherein communicating said updated values is both
`
`
`
`based on reconfigurable
`
`routing resources within the at least one reconfigurable processor; and
`
`substantiallyeeneurrentlypreviding—communicating said updated values
`
`substantially concurrently to a first row of a second systolic wall of rows of cells in
`
`said subset of said plurality of functional units, wherein communicating said updated
`
`values is based on reconfigurable routing resources within the at least one
`
`reconfigurable processor and wherein said first systolic wall of rows of cells and said
`
`second wall of rows of systolic cells execute substantially concurrently and pass
`
`computed data seamlessly between said systolic walls.
`
`27.
`
`(original) The method of claim 26 wherein said values correspond to vectors
`
`in a computation.
`
`28.
`
`(original) The method of claim 26 wherein said values correspond to planes
`
`in a computation.
`
`29.
`
`(original) The method of claim 26 wherein said values correspond to time
`
`steps in a computation.
`
`30.
`
`(original) The method of claim 28 wherein said values correspond to grid
`
`points in a computation.
`
`31.
`
`(original) The method of claim 26 wherein said step of communicating said
`
`updated values to a second row of said first systolic wall is carried out without
`
`storing said updated values in an extrinsic memory.
`
`'-"'-CS . BSD-1043000015 ‘ 842?? v1
`
`6
`
`Petitioner Microsoft Corporation - Ex. 1002, p. 218
`
`Petitioner Microsoft Corporation - EX. 1002, p. 218
`
`

`

`Serial No. 10i265.318
`Reply to Office Action of August 17. 2006
`
`32.
`
`(original) The method of claim 26 wherein said values correspond to a
`
`seismic imaging calculation.
`
`33.
`
`(original) The method of claim 26 wherein said values correspond to a
`
`synthetic aperture radar imaging calculation.
`
`34.
`
`(original) The method of claim 26 wherein said values correspond to a JPEG
`
`image compression calculation.
`
`35.
`
`(original) The method of claim 26 wherein said values correspond to an
`
`MPEG image compression caiculation.
`
`36.
`
`(original) The method of claim 26 wherein said values correspond to a fluid
`
`flow calcutation for a reservoir simulation.
`
`37.
`
`(original) The method of ciaim 26 wherein said values correspond to a fluid
`
`flow calculation for weather prediction.
`
`38.
`
`(original) The method of claim 26 wherein said values correspond to a fluid
`
`flow calculation for automotive applications.
`
`39.
`
`(original) The method of claim 26 wherein said values correspond to a fiuid
`
`flow calculation for aerospace applicatioos.
`
`40.
`
`(original) The method of claim 26 wherein said values correspond to a fluid
`
`flow calculation for an injection molding application.
`
`41.
`
`(currently amended) The method of claim 26 wherein defining includes
`
`establishing a stream communication connection between functional units and
`
`wherein how—many only functional units and—tunetienavaeot-eaehiuneeenaium—is
`
`"-'ICS v060404.'(100016- 34277“
`
`7
`
`Petitioner Microsoft Corporation - Ex. 1002, p. 219
`
`Petitioner Microsoft Corporation - EX. 1002, p. 219
`
`

`

`Serial No. 10r285.318
`Reply to Office Action of August 17. 2006
`
`
`
`to solve the calculations are instantiated.
`
`42.
`
`(original) The method of claim 26 wherein said values correspond to a
`
`structures calculation for structural analysis.
`
`43.
`
`(original) The method of claim 26 wherein said values correspond to a
`
`search algorithm for an image search.
`
`44.
`
`(original) The method of claim 26 wherein said values correspond to a
`
`search algorithm for data mining.
`
`45.
`
`(original) The method of claim 26 wherein said values correspond to a
`
`financial modeling application.
`
`46.
`
`(original) The method of claim 26 wherein said values correspond to an
`
`encryption algorithm.
`
`4?.
`
`(canceled)
`
`48.
`
`(original) The method of claim 26 wherein said values correspond to a
`
`genetic pattern matching function.
`
`49.
`
`(original) The method of claim 26 wherein said values correspond to a
`
`protein folding function.
`
`50.
`
`(original) The method of claim 26 wherein said values correspond to an
`
`organic structure interaction function.
`
`51.
`
`(original) The method of claim 26 wherein said values correspond to a signat
`
`filtering application.
`
`“CS - 080404i000013-SIEF? v1
`
`8
`
`Petitioner Microsoft Corporation - Ex. 1002, p. 220
`
`Petitioner Microsoft Corporation - EX. 1002, p. 220
`
`

`

`Serial No. 10285318
`Reply to Office Action of August 1?, 2006
`
`52.
`
`(canceled)
`
`53.
`
`(previously presented) The method of claim 26 wherein said reconfigurable
`
`computing system comprises at least one microprocessor.
`
`54.
`
`(currently amended) A method for data processing in a reconfigurable
`
`computing system, the reconfigurable computer system comprising at least one
`
`reconfigurable processor comprising a plurality of functional units. said method
`
`comprising:
`
`transforming an algorithm into a calculation that is systolically implemented
`
`by said reconfigurable comguting system at the at least one reconfigurable
`
`processor wherein systolically linked lines of code of said calculation are instantiated
`
`as subsets of said plurality of functional units within the at least one reconfigurable
`
`processor forming columns of said calculation;
`
`performing said calculation at the at least one reconfigurable processor by
`
`said subsets a—sabset of said plurality of functional units to produce computed data;
`
`passing exchanging said computed data between [[from]] a first column of
`
`said calculation [[to]]and a next column in said calculation. wherein said exchanging
`
`passing is based on reconfigurable routing resources within the at least one
`
`reconfigurable processor and wherein execution of said subsets of said glurality of
`
`function units occurs concurrently and said comguted data is seamlessly gassed
`
`between said first column of said calculation and said second column of said
`
` calculatio
`
`evaluating a rate of change in at least one variable for each of said columns
`
`in said calculation:
`
`continuing said calculation when said variable does not change for a
`
`particular column of said calculation: and
`
`MCS - FJSOdMiDOOD 18 v 54???" vi
`
`9
`
`Petitioner Microsoft Corporation - Ex. 1002, p. 221
`
`Petitioner Microsoft Corporation - EX. 1002, p. 221
`
`

`

`Serial No. 101285.318
`Reply to Office Action of August 1?, 2006
`
`restarting said calculation at said column of said calculation where said
`
`variable does change.
`
`55.
`
`(canceled)
`
`56.
`
`(currently amended) The method of claim 54 wherein how many functional
`
`units comprise the subset and functional type of each functional unit in said subset
`
`is based on the calculationand—whereinAhe-paeshgstefisextemakorwfioafion
`
`praised—independent.
`
`":‘vCS - GEOdQ—iiflofifllfl . 5112?? vi
`
`1
`J-
`
`C.)
`
`Petitioner Microsoft Corporation - Ex. 1002, p. 222
`
`Petitioner Microsoft Corporation - EX. 1002, p. 222
`
`

`

`Serial No. 10/285,318
`Reply to Office Action of August 17. 2005
`
`REMARKSMRGUMENTS
`
`Claims 1-20, 22—46, 48-51, 53, 54 and 55 were presented for examination
`
`and are pending in this application.
`
`ln an Official Office Action dated August 17,
`
`2006. claims 1-20, 222-46, 48-51. 53. 54 and 56 were rejected. The Applicant thanks
`
`the Examiner for his consideration and addresses the Examiner's comments
`
`concerning the claims pending in this application below.
`
`Applicant herein amends claims 1. 26. 41, 54 and 56 and respectfully
`
`traverses the Examiner‘s prior rejections. No claims are presently canceled and no
`
`new claims are presently added. These changes are believed not to introduce new
`
`matter. and their entry is respectfully requested. The claims have been amended to
`
`expedite the prosecution and issuance of the application.
`
`in making this
`
`amendment. Applicant has not and is not narrowing the scope of the protection to
`
`which the Applicant considers the claimed invention to be entitled and does not
`
`concede. directly or by implication. that the subject matter of such claims were in
`
`fact disclosed or taught by the cited prior art. Rather, Applicant reserves the right to
`
`pursue such protection at a tater point in time and merely seeks to pursue protection
`
`for the subject matter presented in this submission.
`
`Based on the above amendment and the following remarks, Applicant
`
`respectfully requests that the Examiner reconsider all outstanding rejections and
`
`withdraw them.
`
`Summary of Interview with the Examiner
`
`A telephonic interview was conducted between the Examiner and the
`
`Applicant's attorney on October 12, 2006 and on October 24, 2006. During these
`
`interviews distinctions between the Applicant‘s invention and the prior art were
`
`"-"CS - 0504WFCC‘EIOIE1 - 3-12??- vi
`
`11
`
`Petitioner Microsoft Corporation - Ex. 1002, p. 223
`
`Petitioner Microsoft Corporation - EX. 1002, p. 223
`
`

`

`Serial No. 10285318
`Reply to Office Action of August 17‘ 2006
`
`discussed. Specifically. the Applicant discussed the transformation of a serial based
`
`algorithm to one that can be systolically implemented in a reconfigurable processor.
`
`Additionally, the claims concurrent execution of computation units in such a systolic
`
`fashion in comparison to the non concurrent systolic nature of the cited references
`
`were discussed. Discussion also centered on the use of the words "protocol
`
`independent" to impart the ability of functional units to seamlessly pass computed
`
`data between computational loops comprised of functional units. Proposed
`
`amendments where discussed although no specific language was agreed upon.
`
`The Examiner requested that the Applicant further define the term instantiated and
`
`systolic in subsequent communications.
`
`Rejection of the claims under 35 U.S.C. §112
`
`Claims 1-20. 22-46, 48-51. 53, 54, and 56 were rejected under 35 U.S.C.
`
`§112 first paragraph as failing to comply with the written description requirement.
`
`The Examiner asserts that the application fails to comply with the written description
`
`and enablement requirement with reSpect to the language of the independent claims
`
`stating “wherein each functional unit at the at least one reconfigurable processor
`
`communicates with each other functional unit at the at least one reconfigurable
`
`processor independent of external and internal communication protocols." The
`
`Applicant respectfully disagrees.
`
`The present invention describes and claims methods in a reconfigurable
`
`processing system comprising at least one reconfigurable processor. As described
`
`in the specification at least in the paragraphs beginning on line 26 of page 10 and
`
`on line 3 of page 11. each reconfigurable processor can possess a plurality of
`
`functional units. The instantiation of the at least one reconfigurable processor with
`
`at least two functional units enables each functional unit to communicate with each
`
`other. Certainly communication between other reconfigurable processors within the
`
`'-“-CS - censor-000mm 542?? vi
`
`1 2
`
`Petitioner Microsoft Corporation - Ex. 1002, p. 224
`
`Petitioner Microsoft Corporation - EX. 1002, p. 224
`
`

`

`Sarial No. 10(285.318
`Reply to Office Action of August 1?, 2006
`
`system would require communication protocol but communication between
`
`functional units within an individual reconfigurable processor is free of such a
`
`requirement. To alleviate any confusion, the reference to the term “protocol" has
`
`been replaced with an “interconnection" between functional units that is established
`
`by reconfigurable routing resources inside each chip.
`
`The Examiner also rejects the aforementioned claims on the grounds that the
`
`number of functional units needed to solve a particular problem is not described in
`
`the specification. The Applicant refers the Examiner to lines 2-8 of page 3 of the
`
`specification. While the Applicant believes the concept of the "type“ and “number"
`
`of functional unit is implied in the aforementioned portion of the specification, the
`
`wording of the claim has been amended to align with the specification. namely that
`
`only the functional units needed to soive a particular application are instantiated.
`
`lnstantiation is a term well known to one of ordinary skill in the art of
`
`reconfigurable processing. A reconfigurable processor is essentially a blank
`
`processor that must be configured (instantiated) to conduct a particular task. To
`
`instantiate means to create such an instance or configuration by. for example.
`
`defining one particular variation of the processor‘s structure. This involves allocation
`
`of a structure with the types specified by a template and the initialization of instance
`
`variables with either default values or those provided by a constructor function.
`
`In
`
`reconfigurable computing a hard macro library file is typically inserted into a design
`
`file. A design may include multiple instances of the same library file with each
`
`possessing a unique name. Thus in the Applicant's invention the reconfigurable
`
`processor is instantiated and designed to perform the defined calcutation. Each
`
`instantiation for each calculation is unique.
`
`Similarly the term systolic computation is derived from continual and pulsating
`
`pumping of the human heart.
`
`In computer architecture a systolic array is an
`
`"-‘uCS . cacsc-ucuocis - 31?“ v1
`
`1 3
`
`Petitioner Microsoft Corporation - Ex. 1002, p. 225
`
`Petitioner Microsoft Corporation - EX. 1002, p. 225
`
`

`

`Serial No. 101285318
`Reply to Office Action of August 1?, 2006
`
`arrangement of data processing units similar to a central processing unit but without
`
`a program counter or clock that drives the movement of data. That is because the
`
`operation of the systolic array is transport triggered, i.e. by the arrival of a data
`
`object. Data flows across the array between functional units. usually with different
`
`data flowing in different directions. David J. Evans in his work, Systolic algorithms.
`
`Systolic algorithms, number 3 in Topics in Computer Mathematics, Gordon and
`
`Breach, 1991 define a Systolic system as a "network of processors which
`
`rhythmically compute an pass data through the system" Thus in the Applicant's
`
`invention Systolic implementation will connect computational loops such that data
`
`from one compute loop will be passed as input data to a concurrently executing
`
`compute loop.
`
`In the Appticant‘s invention data computed by computation units or
`
`groups of functional units flows seamlessly and concurrently with data being
`
`computed by other groups of functional units. Thus. the process claimed by the
`
`Applicant therefore significantly increases the computing processes taking place in a
`
`reconfigurable processor.
`
`35 U.S.C. §103(a) Obviousness Rejection of Claims
`
`Claims 1—5, 15, 21, 26-31, 41, 47, 52, 53 and 56 were rejected under 35
`
`U.S.C. §103(a) as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent No. 5,956,518 (“DeHon”) in
`
`v