Ex Parte STEMPEL et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 28, 2018

14498938 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 28, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
14/498,938 09/26/2014 Brian Michael STEMPEL
12371 7590 07/02/2018
Muncy, Geissler, Olds & Lowe, P.C./QUALCOMM
4000 Legato Road, Suite 310
Fairfax, VA 22033
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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
QC132769 1085
EXAMINER
PAN, DANIEL H
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2182
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/02/2018 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 BRIAN MICHAEL STEMPEL,
JAMES NORRIS DIEFFENDERFER,
MICHAEL SCOTT MCILVAINE, and MELINDA BROWN1
Appeal 2018-001058
Application 14/498,93 8
Technology Center 2100
Before CAROLYN D. THOMAS, JASON V. MORGAN, and
ADAM J. PYONIN, Administrative Patent Judges.
MORGAN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's Final
Rejection of claims 1-30. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We REVERSE.
1 Appellant is the applicant, Qualcomm Incorporated, identified in the
Appeal Brief as the real party in interest. App. Br. 3.
Appeal 2018-001058
Application 14/498,938
Invention
The Specification discloses a method of executing instructions in an
instruction pipeline of a processor that includes detecting a conditionality-
imposing control instruction such as an If-Then (IT) instruction. Abstract.
Illustrative Claim (key limitations emphasized)
1. A method of executing instructions in an instruction pipeline of a
processor, the method comprising:
detecting a conditionality-imposing control instruction which imposes
dependent behavior on a conditionality block size number of one or
more dependent instructions;
prior to executing a first instruction, dependency-predicting that the
first instruction is a dependent instruction of the conditionality-
imposing control instruction, based on the conditionality block size
and one or more parameters of the instruction pipeline;
executing the first instruction based on the dependency-prediction;
and
when the first instruction is dependency-mispredicted, mitigating a
penalty associated with the dependency-misprediction.
Rejections
The Examiner rejects claims 1-10, 12-21, and 23-30 under
35 U.S.C. § I02(a)(l) as being anticipated by Almog (US 2004/0123075 Al;
published June 24, 2004). Final Act. 3-8.
The Examiner rejects claims 11 and 22 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over Almog and Pruitt (US 6,179,490 Bl; issued Jan. 30,
2001). Final Act. 8.
OBJECTION
The Examiner objects to language in claim 30 for being repetitive and
failing to "add any meaning to what is already contained in the claim." Final
2
Appeal 2018-001058
Application 14/498,938
Act. 2. Appellant contends "the claim structure presented in Claim 30 is
easy to read, and moreover, that what is or is not easy is a subjective
determination." App. Br. 7. Thus, Appellant requests "that the Board
overturn the objection[] imposed on Claim 30." Id.
The Board normally only considers matters affecting the merits of the
invention, i.e., the rejections of claims. Other matters are properly addressed
by petition. See 3 7 C.F .R. § 41.31( c ); MPEP § 1201 ("The Board will not
ordinarily hear a question that should be decided by the Director on petition .
. . "). The Board may address a rejection improperly characterized as an
objection, i.e., a de facto rejection. See In re Haas, 486 F.2d 1053, 1056
(CCPA 1973) ("An examiner's adverse action of this nature is a rejection, a
denial of substantive rights. Review thereof must fall within the jurisdiction
of the board"); see also In re Searles, 422 F.2d 431,435 (CCPA 1970)
(holding an Examiner's adverse decision is properly reviewable by the
Board when the review requires the exercise of technical skill and legal
judgement in order to evaluate the facts presented, interpret the requirements
of the relevant statute, and weigh the facts against those requirements).
Appellant has provided no arguments or evidence that the Examiner's
objection amounts to a de facto rejection of claim 30. Accordingly, we do
not address the merits of the Examiner's objection of claim 30.
35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(l) AND 103 REJECTIONS
Findings and Contentions
In rejecting claim 1 as being anticipated, the Examiner finds Almog's
method of executing instructions in an instruction timeline of a processor
using extended loop prediction discloses "detecting a conditionality-
imposing control instruction which imposes dependent behavior on a
3
Appeal 2018-001058
Application 14/498,938
conditionality block size number of one or more dependent instructions."
Final Act. 3--4 ( citing Almog Fig. 2, ,r,r 24--25). In particular, the Examiner
finds:
Almog's inner loop includes "for j = 1 to 100 - (4*i)" instruction
for checking if the "j" is within the terminal count ("100 -
(4*i)"), then the function() will be iteratively executed (e.g. see
fig. I, the inner loop "for" in [a] Memory ... ; the memory is a
cache memory .... Therefore, Almog' s "for j = 1 to 100 - ( 4 *i)"
which is an instruction ( such as a command), and has the same
characteristic feature of "If-Then" conditionality-imposing
control instruction.
Ans. 10. Thus, the Examiner finds that Almog's FOR loop discloses a
"conditionality-imposing control instruction." Id.
Appellant contends the Examiner erred because the loops of Almog
are not conditionality-imposing control instructions that "impose any sort of
"dependent behavior on [a] component instruction[]," because the
Examiner's finding "is seen to be at odds with the meaning of any
instruction, and specifically the claimed conditionally-imposing control
instruction, as understood by one of skill in the art." App. Br. 7; see also
Reply Br. 2-3.
Analysis
We agree with the Appellant that the Examiner erred. In particular,
the Examiner's interpretation of a "conditionally-imposing control
instruction" is unreasonably broad.
A conditionally-imposing control instruction, as claimed in light of
the Specification, is an instruction that imposes a conditional behavior on a
dependent instruction. See Spec. ,r 6. That is, a dependent instruction, such
as an unconditional branch instruction that depends on a conditionality-
4
Appeal 2018-001058
Application 14/498,938
imposing control instruction, becomes conditional rather than unconditional.
Id. ,r 7. This is distinct from instructions such as conditional branch
instructions, which have their conditionality provided within the instructions
themselves. Id. ,r 6.
The Examiner's reliance on Almog's FOR loops is misplaced because
the Examiner's findings do not show Almog's FOR loops imposes any
conditions on their accompanying (purportedly dependent) instructions. As
Appellant notes, "the instructions within the inner loop ... are executed
each time the loop is executed, thus excluding any notion of conditional
execution." App. Br. 8. That is, the Examiner's findings do not show that
the FOR loops affect the behavior of any instructions within the FOR loops
so as to make them conditional. Instead, Almog's FOR loops stop executing
these instructions when the loop conditions are no longer met or when the
FOR loops have been executed the prerequisite number of times. Ending
execution of one or more instructions does not impose "dependent behavior
on ... one or more dependent instructions" (i.e., making them conditional)
as claimed. Almog's instructions, whether executed or skipped over, would
be conditional or unconditional instructions, as the case may be, regardless
of Almog's FOR loops. Therefore, we agree with Appellant that the
Examiner's findings do not show that Almog discloses a conditionally-
imposing control instruction, as recited in claim 1.
Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner's 35 U.S.C. § 102 (a)(l)
rejection to independent claim 1, and claims 2-10, 12-21, and 23-30, which
contain similar recitations and are similarly rejected. The Examiner does not
show that Pruitt cures the noted deficiency of Almog. Therefore, we also do
not sustain the Examiner's 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection of claims 11 and 22.
5
Appeal 2018-001058
Application 14/498,938
DECISION
We reverse the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-30.
We do not address the Examiner's objection of claim 30.
REVERSED
6