Ex Parte Elwood et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Apr 19, 2010

11095655 (B.P.A.I. Apr. 19, 2010)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________________

Ex parte MATTHEW PAUL ELWOOD, DAVID JOHN BUTCHER, and
RICHARD ROY GRISENTHWAITE
____________________

Appeal 2009-014139
Application 11/095,655
Technology Center 2100
____________________

Decided: April 20, 2010
____________________

Before JOHN A. JEFFERY, THU A. DANG, and JAMES R. HUGHES,
Administrative Patent Judges.

DANG, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2009-014139
Application 11/095,655

I. STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal from the Examiner’s final rejection of claims 1-22
under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) (2002). We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b). An Oral Hearing regarding this appeal was conducted on April 13,
2010.

We reverse.

A. INVENTION
According to Appellants, the invention relates to data processing
supporting multiple program instruction sets (Spec. 2, ll. 5-7).

B. ILLUSTRATIVE CLAIM
Claim 1 is exemplary and is reproduced below:
1. Apparatus for processing data, said apparatus
comprising:

an instruction decoder configured in a first state to
decode program instructions to generate control signals which
control the apparatus to perform data processing operations in
accordance with an instruction encoding of a first instruction set
and in a second state to decode program instructions to generate
control signals which control the apparatus to perform data
processing operations in accordance with an instruction
encoding of a second instruction set; wherein

at least conditional branch instructions of said first
instruction set and conditional branch instructions of said
second instruction set share a same instruction encoding,

2
Appeal 2009-014139
Application 11/095,655

wherein each instruction encoding is a specific pattern of
binary numbers that identifies the instruction and distinguishes
the instruction from other instructions.

C. REJECTIONS
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Blomgren US 5,781,750 Jul. 14, 1998
Poplingher US 6,021, 489 Feb. 1, 2000
Chauvel US 2004/002499 A1 Feb. 5, 2004

Claims 1-4, 9-14, and 19-22 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
over the teachings of Blomgren in view of Chauvel.
Claims 5-8 and 15-18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over
the teachings of Blomgren in view of Chauvel and Poplingher.

II. ISSUE
Has the Examiner erred in holding that Blomgren in view of Chauvel
would have taught or suggested “at least conditional branch instructions of
said first instruction set and conditional branch instructions of said second
instruction set share a same instruction encoding” (claim 1), as Appellants
contend?

III. FINDINGS OF FACT
The following Findings of Fact (FF) are shown by a preponderance of
the evidence.
3
Appeal 2009-014139
Application 11/095,655

Blomgren
1. Blomgren discloses a central processing unit (CPU) that can execute
both reduced instruction set computer (RISC) and complex instruction
set computer (CISC) instructions, wherein Instruction Decode Unit
(ID 36) is composed of a sub-block for decoding CISC instructions
and another for decoding RISC instructions (col. 6, ll. 16-17; Fig. 2).
2. RISC instruction set includes bcx branch conditional instructions (col.
19, l. 9) while CISC instruction set includes x86 JZ conditional
instructions (col. 15, l. 13).
Chauvel
3. Chauvel discloses a decode logic for decoding instructions in two
modes, wherein the first mode is for instructions of a first instruction
set such as standard Java instruction set, and the second mode is for
instructions of a second instruction set such as C-ISA (p. 4, ¶ [0027];
Fig. 4).
4. Systems commands may be the same for both instruction sets,
wherein a common opcode may be utilized in both instructions sets to
specify the system commands (id. at ¶ [0032]).

IV. PRINCIPLES OF LAW
35 U.S.C. § 103
In rejecting claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103, it is incumbent upon the
Examiner to establish a factual basis to support the legal conclusion of
obviousness. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 1073 (Fed. Cir. 1988). In so
doing, the Examiner must make the factual determinations set forth in
Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17 (1966). “[T]he examiner bears
4
Appeal 2009-014139
Application 11/095,655

the initial burden, on review of the prior art or on any other ground, of
presenting a prima facie case of unpatentability.” In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d
1443, 1445 (Fed. Cir. 1992).

V. ANALYSIS
Claims 1-4, 9-14, and 19-22
Appellants contend that “[t]he Examiner admits that Blomgren fails
to teach at least conditional branch instructions of the first instruction set and
conditional branch instructions of the second instruction set sharing a same
instruction encoding” of claim 1 (App. Br. 12). Appellants further contend
that Chauvel does not disclose the missing feature because “[t]he processor
in Chauvel executes Java Bytecodes in a first mode and executes instructions
of a complementary instruction set architecture (C-ISA) in a second mode”
wherein “the two complementary instruction sets are used with different
computer architectures and have very different requirements” (App. Br. 13).
That is, “branch commands, being in a different class from Chauvel’s system
commands, are not included” and it does not “appear that the system
commands are natively part of the Java Bytecodes” (App. Br. 14). Thus,
Appellants contend that “the combination of references applied in the final
rejection does not teach all the features recited in the independent claims”
(Reply Br. 2).
The Examiner admits that “Blomgren does not disclose that at least
conditional branch instructions of said first instruction set and conditional
branch instructions of said second instruction set share a same instruction
encoding” (Ans. 6). However, the Examiner finds that “Chauvel discloses
… specifying instructions that are present in different instruction sets with a
5
Appeal 2009-014139
Application 11/095,655

common opcode” and that “system commands may be the same for both
instruction sets” (id.). The Examiner further finds that, in Chauvel, “the
decoder may be decoding an instruction from a first instruction set… e.g. a
branch instruction… and points to a predetermined prefix… indicating the
succeeding instruction is a system command from a second instruction set”
and thus “Chuavel’s [sic] teaching eliminates the need to switch between the
decode logic modes” (Ans. 7). The Examiner then concludes that “it would
have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the
invention to combine the teaching of Chauvel with the invention of
Blomgren in order to eliminate the need to switch between the decode logic
modes” (id.).
Accordingly, an issue we address on appeal is whether Blomgren in
view of Chauvel teaches or would have suggested “at least conditional
branch instructions of said first instruction set and conditional branch
instructions of said second instruction set share a same instruction encoding”
(claim 1), as Appellants contend.
After reviewing the record on appeal, we agree with Appellants.
Though we agree with the Examiner that Blomgren discloses decoding
instructions (and conditional instructions included therein) of two separate
instruction sets in separate sub-blocks (FF 1-2) and that Chauvel discloses
decoding instructions of two separate instruction sets (FF 3) wherein
“system commands may be the same for both instruction sets” (FF 4), we
cannot find any teaching of conditional branch instructions of a first
instruction set and conditional branch instructions of a second instruction set
that share a same instruction encoding, as required by claim 1, in the
sections referenced by the Examiner. That is, the sections in Chauvel
6
Appeal 2009-014139
Application 11/095,655

referenced by the Examiner merely indicate that the instructions sets
comprise “a common opcode” and that “system commands may be the same
for both instruction sets” (Ans. 6), but is silent as to any conditional branch
instruction having a same instruction encoding.
Thus, though we agree with the Examiner that “Blomgren does not
disclose that at least conditional branch instructions of said first instruction
set and conditional branch instructions of said second instruction set share a
same instruction encoding” (id.), we find that Chauvel does not cure the
deficiencies of Blomgren. We agree with Appellants that “the two
complementary instruction sets [of Chauvel] are used with different
computer architectures and have very different requirements” (App. Br. 13),
and that “branch commands, being in a different class from Chauvel’s
system commands, are not included” (App. Br. 14).
As such, we will reverse the rejection of representative claim 1,
independent claims 11, 21 and 22 standing therewith, and 2-4, 9-14, 19 and
20 depending respectively from claims 1 and 11, over Blomgren in view of
Chauvel.
Claims 5-8 and 15-18
We also find that Poplingher does not cure these deficiencies of
Blomgren and Chauvel. As such, we will reverse the rejection of claims 5-8
and 15-18 over Blomgren in view of Chauvel and Poplingher.

VI. CONCLUSION
Appellants have shown that the Examiner erred in holding claims 1-4,
9-14, and 19-22 unpatentable over the teachings of Blomgren in view of
Chauvel, and in holding claims 5-8 and 15-18 unpatentable over the
7
Appeal 2009-014139
Application 11/095,655

teachings of Blomgren in view of Chauvel and Poplingher under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a).

VII. DECISION
We have not sustained the Examiner's rejection with respect to any
claim on appeal. Therefore, the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-22 is
reversed.

REVERSED

peb

NIXON & VANDERHYE, PC
901 NORTH GLEBE ROAD, 11TH FLOOR
ARLINGTON, VA 22203
8