Ex Parte Anderson et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Nov 7, 2017

14326928 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 7, 2017)

United States Patent and Trademark Office
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
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
14/326,928 07/09/2014 Timothy David Anderson TI-73989 7905
23494 7590 11/09/2017
TEXAS INSTRUMENTS INCORPORATED
P O BOX 655474, M/S 3999
DALLAS, TX 75265
EXAMINER
COLLINS, GARY
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2115
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
11/09/2017 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):
uspto@ti.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte TIMOTHY DAVID ANDERSON
and DUC QUANG BUI
Appeal 2017-006354
Application 14/326,928
Technology Center 2100
Before ST. JOHN COURTENAY III, LARRY J. HUME, and
JOYCE CRAIG, Administrative Patent Judges.
COURTENAY, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s Final
rejection of claims 1,5, and 6, which are all the claims pending in this
application.1 Claims 2—A are cancelled. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
1 We refer herein to the Final Office Action, mailed July 28, 2016; the
Appeal Brief, filed Sept. 21, 2016; the Examiner’s Answer mailed Jan. 5,
2017; and the Reply Brief filed March 2, 2017.
Appeal 2017-006354
Application 14/326,928
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Invention
The disclosed and claimed invention on appeal relates to a “method to
control the number of active vector lanes for power efficiency.” (Spec. 1,
Title).
Claim 1 is reproduced below (disputed limitations lettered):
A method of reducing power consumption by a vector
processor, comprising the steps of:
dividing a vector data path of the vector processor into a
plurality of narrower vector lanes;
[LI] storing a number of active vector lanes in a register;
upon executing a vector instruction reading said number
of active vector lanes from said register;
[L2] determining the number of active vector lanes from
said data indicative of the number of active vector lanes;
powering down the inactive vector lanes.2
Rejection
Claims 1, 5, and 6, are rejected under (AIA) 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1), as
anticipated by Totsuka (US 2006/0155964 Al; published July 13, 2006).
(Final Act. 2.)
2 We note claim term “the inactive vector lanes” has no antecedent basis in
claim 1. In the event of further prosecution, we leave it to the Examiner to
consider a rejection under (AIA) 35 U.S.C. § 112(b). Although the Board is
authorized to reject claims under 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b), no inference should
be drawn when the Board elects not to do so. See Manual of Patent
Examining Procedure (MPEP) § 1213.02 (9th ed., rev. 07.2015, Nov. 2015).
2
Appeal 2017-006354
Application 14/326,928
ANALYSIS
Rejection of Independent Claim 1 under § 102
Issue: Under (AIA) 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1), did the Examiner err in
finding the cited Totsuka reference expressly or inherently discloses
contested limitations LI and L2:
(LI) storing a number of active vector lanes in a register;
(L2) determining the number of active vector lanes from said
data indicative of the number of active vector lanes[,]
within the meaning of independent claim l?3
Regarding the sole rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 102, we have
considered all of Appellants’ arguments and any evidence presented. We
disagree with Appellants’ arguments, and we adopt as our own: (1) the
findings and legal conclusions set forth by the Examiner in the action from
which this appeal is taken (final Act. 2-4); and (2) the findings, legal
conclusions, and explanations set forth in the Answer (2—5) in response to
Appellants’ arguments. We highlight and address specific findings and
arguments for emphasis in our analysis below.
Regarding claim 1, Appellants contend, inter alia:
“Claim 1 recites a manner of encoding the active/inactive selection
different than taught in Totsuka.” (App. Br. 5.)
3 We give the contested claim limitation the broadest reasonable
interpretation consistent with the Specification. See In re Morris, 111 E.3d
1048, 1054 (Led. Cir. 1997).
3
Appeal 2017-006354
Application 14/326,928
Appellants further contend:
Storing the number of active vector lanes recited in claim 1
results in storing different data than taught in Totsuka. The
technique taught in Totsuka requires N bits for N vector lanes.
The technique recited in claim 1 requires fewer bits, log2N, for
N vector lanes. Accordingly, claim 1 is not anticipated by
Totsuka.
(App. Br. 6).
We are not persuaded by Appellants’ arguments, because Appellants
are arguing limitations that are not recited in claim l.4 Claim 1 is silent
regarding the argued “encoding [of any] active/inactive selection.” (App.
Br. 5). Moreover, claim 1 is silent regarding the argued: “[t]he technique
recited in claim 1 requires fewer bits, log2N, for N vector lanes.” (App.
Br. 6).
Therefore, on this record, Appellants have not provided sufficient
evidence or argument to persuade us of any reversible error in the
Examiner’s reading of the contested limitations on the corresponding
4 Regardless of the general contentions and imputed intended meanings
articulated by Appellants in the Brief, “[i]t is the claims that measure the
invention.” See SRI Int’l v. Matsushita Elec. Corp. of Am., 775 F.2d 1107,
1121 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (en banc) (citations omitted); In re Hiniker Co., 150
F.3d 1362, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (“[T]he name of the game is the claim”)
(citations omitted, emphasis added). “Though understanding the claim
language may be aided by the explanations contained in the written
description, it is important not to import into a claim limitations that are not
a part of the claim.” SuperGuide Corp. v. DirecTV Enterprise, Inc., 358
F.3d 870, 875 (Fed. Cir. 2004). “We have cautioned against reading
limitations into a claim from the preferred embodiment described in the
[Specification, even if it is the only embodiment described, absent clear
disclaimer in the [Specification.” In re Am. Acad. ofSci. Tech. Ctr., 367
F.3d 1359, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2004).
4
Appeal 2017-006354
Application 14/326,928
features found in Totsuka. (See Final Act. 2—3). Accordingly, we sustain
the Examiner's anticipation rejection of independent claim 1.
Remaining Dependent Claims 5 and 6
Appellants restate their argument regarding limitation LI in claim 1
for each of remaining dependent claims 5 and 6, which are also rejected
under § 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1). Appellants merely assert: “Totsuke fails to
teach that the data stored is the number of active vector lanes as recited in
claim 5 and base claim 1. Accordingly, claim 5 is allowable over Totsuke.”
(App. Br. 6). Similarly, regarding claim 6, Appellants merely assert:
“Totsuke fails to teach this extracted data is the number of active vector
lanes as recited in claim 6 and base claim 1.” (App. Br. 7). We do not find
these cursory contentions to be persuasive as separate, substantive
arguments. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv).
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s anticipation rejection of
remaining dependent claims 5 and 6 on appeal.
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1, 5, and 6, under
(AIA) 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1).
No time for taking any action connected with this appeal may be
extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l)(iv). See 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(f).
AFFIRMED
5