Ex parte Torng et al.

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

May 26, 1998

08028757 (B.P.A.I. May. 26, 1998)

Application for patent filed March 9, 1993. According1
to appellants, this application is a continuation of
Application 07/469,634 filed January 24, 1990, now abandoned.

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(2) is not binding precedent of the Board.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. 30
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
_____________
Ex parte HWA C. TORNG and MARTIN DAY
____________
Appeal No. 95-1123
Application 08/028,7571
____________
ON BRIEF
____________
Before JERRY SMITH, BARRETT and CARMICHAEL, Administrative
Patent Judges.
CARMICHAEL, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal No. 95-1123
Application 08/028,757
2
This is an appeal from the final rejection of claims
1-7, which constitute all the claims remaining in the
application.
Claim 1 reads as follows:
1. A pipelining processor comprising a plurality of
functional units and an instruction issuing unit operatively
connected thereto for issuing multiple instructions
concurrently and for allowing for the processing of
instructions in an out-of-order sequence, said instruction
issuing unit having means for handling an interrupt of said
processor to facilitate continued operation upon said out-of-
order instructions upon termination of said interrupt, said
pipelining processor further comprising an execution unit, and
said instruction issuing unit including an instruction window
and an instruction buffer, said instruction issuing unit being
operatively connected to said execution unit, said instruction
window being adapted to store a value representative of a
number of uncompleted instructions, so that when an interrupt
to said processor occurs, previously issued instructions that
have been interrupted and are hence uncompleted can be
executed by said execution unit, said value providing a
precise interrupt point for returning to an interrupted
program by defining a precise interrupt boundary as said group
of instructions in said instruction window.
The examiner’s answer cites the following prior art:
Acosta et al. (Acosta), “An Instruction Issuing Approach to
Enhancing Performance in Multiple Functional Unit Processors”,
IEEE Transactions on Computers, Vol. C-35, No. 9 (September
1986) pages 815-828.
Inagami et al. (Inagami) 4,782,441 Nov.
1, 1988
Appeal No. 95-1123
Application 08/028,757
3
Torng 4,807,115 Feb. 21,
1989
OPINION
The claims are subject to three rejections:
indefiniteness, non-enablement, and obviousness.
Indefiniteness
The claims stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112,
second paragraph, as being indefinite. The examiner raises
eight points of ambiguity in support of the rejection.
Examiner’s Answer at 3-5.
The legal standard for definiteness is whether a
claim reasonably apprises those of skill in the art of its
scope. In re Warmerdam, 33 F.3d 1354, 1361, 31 USPQ2d 1754,
1759 (Fed. Cir. 1994). In the present case, the examiner’s
objections point out the broad scope of the claims, but they
do not demonstrate indefiniteness. Therefore, we will not
sustain this rejection.
Non-enablement
The claims stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112,
first paragraph, as being non-enabled by the specification.
Appeal No. 95-1123
Application 08/028,757
4
The burden initially falls upon the Examiner to
establish a reasonable basis for questioning the adequacy of
the disclosure. In re Strahilevitz, 668 F.2d 1229, 212 USPQ
561 (CCPA 1982); In re Angstadt, 537 F.2d 498, 190 USPQ 214
(CCPA 1976); and In re Armbruster, 512 F.2d 676, 185 USPQ 152
(CCPA 1975). In the present case, the entirety of the
examiner’s explanation is contained in the following sentence:
Appellant failed to adequately
teach how to make instruction issuing
unit and means for handling an
interrupt, and it would require a
person of ordinary skill in the art
undue experimentation to
develop such means.
We find this insufficient to establish a reasonable
basis for questioning the adequacy of the disclosure. Because
the examiner has not stated a prima facie case of non-
enablement, we will not sustain this rejection. Moreover, the
examiner did not respond to the reply brief’s arguments
against this new ground of rejection.
Obviousness
The claims stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103, as
being unpatentable over Acosta in view of Inagami.
Appeal No. 95-1123
Application 08/028,757
5
As pointed out by the examiner, Acosta teaches the
invention of claim 1 except for the recited interrupt handling
means in which the number of uncompleted instructions is
stored in the instruction window. Examiner’s Answer at 5-6.
Inagami teaches storing the number of uncompleted
instructions in the instruction window. Column 3, line 17,
through column 5, line 58. This is done to restart the
execution of an interrupted program at the appropriate point
effectively without waste, i.e., to provide a precise
interrupt point. Abstract, lines 8-10.
We agree with the examiner that Inagami suggested
the desirability of storing the number of uncompleted
instructions in the instruction window of Acosta in order to
restart the execution of an interrupted program at the
appropriate point effectively without waste.
Appellants argue that the combination is
inappropriate because Inagami cannot process out-of-order
instructions. Appeal Brief at 8-9. However, Inagami was not
relied on for this. Acosta is an out-of-order machine, and we
find that one of skill in the art could have easily applied
Appeal No. 95-1123
Application 08/028,757
6
Inagami’s teaching of storing the number of uncompleted
instructions to Acosta.
Appellants also argue that Inagami’s window does not
contain issued and non-issued instructions. This argument
finds no basis in claim 1. However, claims 2-7 require the
means for handling an interrupt to detect the number of
instructions unissued at the time of interrupt. Inagami
contains no relevant teaching regarding unissued instructions.
Rather, Inagami addresses instructions that are issued but
whose execution is not yet complete.
Thus, we will sustain the obviousness rejection of
claim 1 but not claims 2-7.
CONCLUSION
The rejections of claims 1-7 under 35 U.S.C. § 112,
first and second paragraphs, are not sustained. The rejection
of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is sustained. The rejection
of claims 2-7 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is not sustained.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in
connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 CFR
§ 1.136(a).
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Appeal No. 95-1123
Application 08/028,757
7
JERRY SMITH )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
)
LEE E. BARRETT ) BOARD OF PATENT
Administrative Patent Judge ) APPEALS AND
) INTERFERENCES
)
)
JAMES T. CARMICHAEL )
Administrative Patent Judge )
Mark Levy
Salzman & Levy
19 Chenango St.-Ste. 606
Binghamton, NY 13901
Appeal No. 95-1123
Application 08/028,757
8