Ex parte MACOMBER

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Mar 10, 1998

08097438 (B.P.A.I. Mar. 10, 1998)

Application for patent filed July 26, 1993.1
1
THIS OPINION WAS NOT WRITTEN FOR PUBLICATION
The opinion in support of the decision being entered today (1) was not written for publication in a law
journal and (2) is not binding precedent of the Board.
Paper No. 15
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_____________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
_____________
Ex parte ROBERT MACOMBER

_____________
Appeal No. 96-1919
Application 08/097,4381
______________
ON BRIEF
_______________
Before URYNOWICZ, BARRETT and FLEMING, Administrative Patent Judges.
URYNOWICZ, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This appeal is from the final rejection of claims 1, 4-8 and 15. The invention pertains to a
circuit that generates an interrupt signal when events are detected and that allows a host device to
process all of the detected events without delay. Claims 1 and 4 are illustrative and read as follows:
Appeal No. 96-1919
Application 08/097,438
2
1. A peripheral device for implementing a scalar interrupt-acknowledgment system that utilizes
a single interrupt indication when one or more events are detected, the peripheral device comprising:
a detector that detects said one or more events and that generates a plurality of increment
signals by generating an increment signal in response to each detected event; and
an unprocessed event counter that counts unprocessed events by incrementing an unprocessed
count in response to each increment signal, and by decrementing the unprocessed count by a value of a
processed count each time a processed count word is received where each processed count word
defines the processed count, that asserts an interrupt signal when the unprocessed count indicates that
an event remains unprocessed, and that deasserts the interrupt signal when the unprocessed count
indicates that all of the detected events have been processed.
4. A host device for implementing a scalar interrupt-acknowledgment system that utilizes a
single interrupt signal when a plurality of events are detected, the host device comprising:
a processor that processes the events detected by an external detector, that generates a
plurality of increment signals by generating an increment signal in response to the processing of each
detected event, and that generates a plurality of transmit signals by generating a transmit signal each time
a number of the detected events are processed; and
a processed event counter that counts a number of processed events by incrementing a
processed count in response to each increment signal, that transmits a plurality of processed count
words by transmitting a processed count word which represents the processed count in response to
each transmit signal, and that resets the processed count in response to the transmission of each
processed count word.
The reference relied upon by the examiner as evidence of obviousness is:
Truchard et al. (Truchard) 5,313,622 May 17, 1994
The appealed claims stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Truchard.
The respective positions of the examiner and the appellant with regard to the propriety of these
rejections are set forth in the final rejection (Paper No. 7) and the examiner's answer (Paper No. 12)
Appeal No. 96-1919
Application 08/097,438
3
and the appellant's brief (Paper No. 11) and reply brief (Paper No. 13).
Appellant's Invention
Appellant discloses a system that counts the number of events received by the system to be
processed, and the number of events that have been processed by the system, and asserts and removes
an interrupt signal in response to the difference in the counts.
As shown in Fig. 9, a detector 114 detects data packets or events (DP) received from an
external bus 118, and generates an increment signal V in response to each detected event DP. AnINCR1
unprocessed event counter 116 maintains a count of the number of unprocessed events by (1)
incrementing an unprocessed count in response to each increment signal V , and (2) decrementingINCR1
the unprocessed count by the value of a processed count each time a processed count word PCW is
received. The processed count word PCW, in turn, defines the value of the processed count.
Counter 116 also asserts an interrupt signal V when the unprocessed count indicates thatINT
events remain to be processed, and eliminates the interrupt signal V when the unprocessed countINT
indicates that all of the events have been processed. A processor 120 processes the events detected
by detector 114, generates an increment signal V in response to the processing of each event, andINCR2
generates a transmit signal V each time a number of events are processed. A counter 122 that countsT
the number of processed events, transmits a count word PCW in response to each transmit signal VT,
and resets the count in response to the transmission of each count word PCW.
Appeal No. 96-1919
Application 08/097,438
4
Opinion
With respect to claim 1, the examiner acknowledges that Truchard does not explicitly give
details about decrementing an unprocessed count by the value of a processed count and contends that
it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide an arrangement in Truchard’s
apparatus because it would have allowed the system to decrement the unprocessed event count
whenever an unprocessed event is processed.
As to claim 4, the examiner states that Truchard does not teach transmitting a processed count
word which represents a processed count in response to a transmit signal, and resetting the processed
count in response to the transmission of each processed count word, and has taken the position that it
would have been obvious to provide apparatus in Truchard’s system for accomplishing these functions
because it would have allowed the system to efficiently keep track of the number of events which are
processed, thereby increasing the overall performance of the system.
With respect to the only other independent claim, claim 15, the examiner merely makes
reference to his positions with respect to claims 1 and 4.
We will not sustain the rejection of claims 1, 4-8 and 15. With respect to claim 1, Truchard
neither counts unprocessed events nor decrements an unprocessed count by the value of a processed
count. Contrary to the examiner’s position in the final rejection, Truchard’s system
Appeal No. 96-1919
Application 08/097,438
5
counter 18 does not count a number of detected events; at column 4, lines 9-14 and 58-62, the
reference discloses that counter 18 measures elapsed time and produces a clock count at the time when
trigger signals 34 are detected.
Even if Truchard counted a number of unprocessed, detected events, it has not been
established that it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the reference
by decrementing the unprocessed count by the value of a processed count. There is no teaching or
suggestion why one of ordinary skill in the art would have wanted to so modify Truchard. The
examiner has merely indicated that Truchard can be modified to provided decrementing. This would
have been inadequate to sustain the rejection. In re Fritch, 972 F.2d 1260, 1266, 23 USPQ2d 1780,
1783-84 (Fed. Cir. 1992).
As to claim 4, it has not been shown that Truchard teaches (1) a processor that generates a
plurality of increment signals by generating an increment signal in response to the processing of each
detected event and that generates a plurality of transmit signals by generating a transmit signal each time
a number of the detected events are processed or (2), a processed event counter that counts a number
of processed events by incrementing a processed count in response to each increment signal, that
transmits a plurality of processed count words by transmitting a processed count word which
represents the processed count in response to each transmit signal, and that resets the processed count
in response to the transmission of each processed count word. The examiner’s position is to the effect
that Truchard could have been modified by including such features. Again, that Truchard could have
Appeal No. 96-1919
Application 08/097,438
6
been so modified is not controlling. It has not been shown that concepts contained in Truchard would
have suggested to one of ordinary skill in the art the above subject matter defined in claim 4. The
reference has not been shown in any way as relating to the counting of unprocessed events or the
decrementing from a count of unprocessed events those events which have been processed.
Whereas the examiner considers that his positions with respect to claims 1 and 4 alone are
sufficient to sustain the rejection of claim 15 over Truchard, and we have found that the rejection of
claims 1 and 4 cannot be sustained, we will not sustain the rejection of claim 15.
Whereas the rejection of independent claim 4 over Truchard will not be sustained, the
examiner’s rejection of claims 5-8, which depend therefrom, will not be sustained.
REVERSED
STANLEY M. URYNOWICZ )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
LEE BARRETT ) APPEALS AND
Administrative Patent Judge ) INTERFERENCES
)
)
)
MICHAEL R. FLEMING )
Administrative Patent Judge )
Appeal No. 96-1919
Application 08/097,438
7
LIMBACH & LIMBACH
2001 FERRY BLDG.
SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94111