Ex parte Atkins et al.

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Sep 10, 1998

08180648 (B.P.A.I. Sep. 10, 1998)

Application for patent filed January 13, 1994. 1
According to appellants, this application is a continuation of
Application 07/287,140 filed December 21, 1988, now abandoned.
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not binding precedent of the Board.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. 21
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
__________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
__________
Ex parte MARK D. ATKINS, AGNES Y. NGAI
and ALFRED T. RUNDLE
__________
Appeal No. 96-1772
Application No. 08/180,6481
__________
ON BRIEF
__________
Before THOMAS, KRASS and TORCZON, Administrative Patent
Judges.
KRASS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal No. 96-1772
Application No. 08/180,648
2
This is a decision on appeal from the final rejection of
claims 8, 12, 15 and 16, all of the claims remaining in the
application.
The invention pertains to a method and apparatus for
counting remaining loop instructions and pipelining the next
instruction.
Representative independent claim 8 is reproduced as
follows:
8. Apparatus for performing a program loop having a
number of iterations of a plurality of instructions
comprising:
a. a means for initializing execution of said
program loop;
b. means coupled to said initializing means for
instantaneously maintaining a first count of said plurality of
instructions within a current one of said number of iterations
which are unexecuted within said current one of said number of
iterations;
c. means coupled to said initializing means and
said instantaneously maintaining means for counting said
number of iterations;
d. means for predetermining a value for the first
count, ranging from zero to the number of instructions in the
plurality; and
e. means for comparing the first count to the value
and for determining an address for an instruction to be
executed when the first count equals the value.
Appeal No. 96-1772
Application No. 08/180,648
3
The examiner relies on the following references:
Fremont 4,703,481 Oct. 27, 1987
Mary et al. (Mary) 4,792,892 Dec. 20, 1988
Claims 8, 12, 15 and 16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
103 as unpatentable over Mary in view of Fremont.
Reference is made to the brief and answer for the
respective positions of appellants and the examiner.
OPINION
We affirm.
Reference to Mary, column 2, lines 32-65, and Figure 2,
clearly shows a computer implemented method of executing a
program loop of a number of iterations of a plurality of
instructions wherein a program loop is initiated, the
plurality of instructions are sequentially executed, a count
is maintained as to which instructions have not been executed,
and an indication is maintained as to which of the number of
iterations is being executed. Further, a value, “N” is
predetermined as to the number of iterations which are
necessary in accordance with the program.
Appeal No. 96-1772
Application No. 08/180,648
4
Appellants do not argue these claimed limitations.
Rather, they argue that the applied references do not suggest
clause (e) of claim 8 or clause (f) of claim 12. These
clauses are directed to comparing the count with the
predetermined value and determining, when the count equals the
value, an address for an instruction to be executed (claim 8)
immediately following the last of the plurality of
instructions (claim 12).
While the examiner relies on Fremont to supply such a
teaching, it is our view that Fremont is merely cumulative to
what is already clearly suggested by Mary.
Mary recites that a sequence of loop instructions “...has
to be executed N times before continuing to the next
instruction...” [column 2, lines 36-37]. Accordingly, it is
inherent that, while a comparator is not specifically shown by
Mary, a comparison must be made between the predetermined
value N and the current count in order to determine that the
loop of instructions has, in fact, been executed N times.
Then, at the time that the comparison indicates that the loop
of instructions has been executed N times, execution is
continued to the next instruction. Inherently, then, the
Appeal No. 96-1772
Application No. 08/180,648
5
address of that next instruction, i.e. instruction JS (Figure
2) in Mary, must have been determined.
Appellants argue nothing of substance with regard to the
instant claimed limitations other than “[n]either of the
references allude [sic, alludes] in the slightest way to
paragraph e. of independent claim 8 and to paragraph f. of
independent claim 12" [brief-page 3]. Since we have shown,
supra, how the references do, in fact, “allude” to these claim
paragraphs, the rejection of claims 8 and 12 under 35 U.S.C.
103 is sustained.
Regarding dependent claims 15 and 16, appellants merely
state that these claims limit claim 12 by reciting that the
predetermined value ranges from zero to the number of
instructions in the plurality and that the value is greater
than zero. First, the mere recitation of claim limitations,
without any indication as to how such limitations distinguish
over the prior art, does not constitute a legitimate
“argument.” In any event, as to the value being greater than
zero, this would have been inherent as it is meaningless to
have zero or a negative number of iterations of loop
instructions. As to the range, this is the same range recited
Appeal No. 96-1772
Application No. 08/180,648
6
in independent claim 8 which was not argued by appellants.
Moreover, the range would have been obvious to skilled
artisans, within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. 103, because it
would appear meaningless to have a value less than zero or
greater than the number of instructions in the plurality of
instructions.
The examiner’s decision rejecting claims 8, 12, 15 and 16
under 35 U.S.C. 103 is affirmed.
Appeal No. 96-1772
Application No. 08/180,648
7
No time period for taking any subsequent action in
connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 CFR
§ 1.136(a).
AFFIRMED
JAMES D. THOMAS )
Administrative Patent Judge)
)
)
)
ERROL A. KRASS ) BOARD OF PATENT
Administrative Patent Judge) APPEALS AND
) INTERFERENCES
)
)
RICHARD TORCZON )
Administrative Patent Judge)
Appeal No. 96-1772
Application No. 08/180,648
8
Hugh D. Jaeger
Hugh D. Jaeger, P.A.
1000 Superior Boulevard
Suite 302
Wayzata, MN 55391