Ex Parte Colavin et alDownload PDFBoard of Patent Appeals and InterferencesSep 29, 200810301372 (B.P.A.I. Sep. 29, 2008) Copy Citation UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS AND INTERFERENCES ____________ Ex parte OSVALDO COLAVIN and DAVIDE RIZZO ____________ Appeal 2008-0420 Application 10/301,372 Technology Center 2100 ____________ Decided: September 29, 2008 ____________ Before JAMES D. THOMAS, HOWARD B. BLANKENSHIP, and JAY P. LUCAS, Administrative Patent Judges. BLANKENSHIP, 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 1-21, which are all the claims in the application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. Appeal 2008-0420 Application 10/301,372 Appellants’ invention relates to runtime reconfigurable processors, particularly to a combination of clustered very large instruction word (VLIW) and runtime reconfigurable architectures. (Spec. 1.) Claim 1 is illustrative. 1. A portion of a processing system comprising: a plurality of processing clusters; a runtime reconfigurable interconnect coupling the plurality of processing clusters; and an interface to a processor; wherein the plurality of processing clusters and the runtime reconfigurable interconnect execute a program segment designated by the processor, the program segment including a configuration portion setting a configuration of the runtime reconfigurable interconnect, wherein execution of the configuration portion by the plurality of clusters and the runtime reconfigurable interconnect is performed if necessary and otherwise skipped. The Examiner relies on the following references as evidence of unpatentability. Jiang US 4,535,427 Aug. 13, 1985 Küçükçakar US 5,815,715 Sept. 29, 1998 Fisher US 6,026,479 Feb. 15, 2000 Hocevar US 6,256,724 B1 Jul. 03, 2001 Batten US 6,269,437 B1 Jul. 31, 2001 Tremblay US 6,542,988 B1 Apr. 1, 2003 (filed Oct. 1, 1999) 2 Appeal 2008-0420 Application 10/301,372 Claims 1, 2, 5, 6, 8, 9, 12, 13, 15, 16, 19, and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Küçükçakar and Batten. Claims 3, 10, and 17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Küçükçakar, Batten, and Tremblay. Claims 4, 11, and 18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Küçükçakar, Batten, Tremblay, and Hocevar. Claims 7, 14, and 21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Küçükçakar, Batten, and Fisher. Representative claims Based on Appellants’ arguments in the Appeal Brief, we will decide the appeal on the basis of claims 1, 2, 5, 3, 4, and 7. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii). The rejections The Examiner sets forth the rejection of claim 1 over Küçükçakar and Batten at pages 3 through 5 of the Answer. Appellants’ response to the rejection of claim 1 is, first, to refer to a Specification “exemplary embodiment” and allege that a corresponding feature is not found in Küçükçakar. (App. Br. 8-9.) The claims measure the invention. See SRI Int’l v. Matsushita Elec. Corp., 775 F.2d 1107, 1121 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (en banc). Our reviewing court has repeatedly warned against confining the claims to specific embodiments described in the specification. Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1323 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc). During prosecution before the USPTO, claims 3 Appeal 2008-0420 Application 10/301,372 are to be given their broadest reasonable interpretation, and the scope of a claim cannot be narrowed by reading disclosed limitations into the claim. See In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054 (Fed. Cir. 1997); In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319, 321 (Fed. Cir. 1989); In re Prater, 415 F.2d 1393, 1404-05 (CCPA 1969). “An essential purpose of patent examination is to fashion claims that are precise, clear, correct, and unambiguous. Only in this way can uncertainties of claim scope be removed, as much as possible, during the administrative process.” In re Zletz, 893 F.2d at 322. Appellants’ arguments based on alleged differences between the instant disclosure and Küçükçakar are not persuasive of error in the rejection. Our position is consistent with that of the Examiner (Ans. 11-12.) Appellants next allege error in the rejection of claim 1 by submitting that the programmable interconnection network 34 in Küçükçakar’s Figure 5 is within a coprocessor, rather than between, or coupling, coprocessors as claimed. (App. Br. 9-10; Reply Br. 5.) However, the argument is not responsive to the rejection that has been applied. Batten, not Küçükçakar, is the reference the rejection relies upon for the teaching of processing clusters. Instant claim 1 recites an interconnect “coupling the plurality of processing clusters.” As the Examiner finds (Ans. 12), when the teachings of Küçükçakar are combined with Batten, each programmable interconnect will join or connect each processing cluster. Appellants next allege that, in Küçükçakar, initialization portion 106 is always performed and never skipped (App. Br. 10-11), whereas instant claim 1 recites that configuration is performed “if necessary and otherwise 4 Appeal 2008-0420 Application 10/301,372 skipped.” As the Examiner finds, however, Küçükçakar teaches that the initialization portion is performed if necessary -- the first time the corresponding program segment is run -- and otherwise skipped. (Ans. 13.) Appellants in response submit that the Examiner has “simply assumed” that the initialization step 106 of Küçükçakar involves configuring a programmable interconnection network. (Reply Br. 3.) A programmable interconnection network as depicted in Küçükçakar’s Figure 5 is included in the programmable coprocessor 86 that is initialized. Küçükçakar col. 7, ll. 42-58; col. 8, ll. 54-63. The interconnection network is programmable by loading instructions into the processor. Col. 4, ll. 29-43. The multiplexers and tri-state buffers of the programmable interconnection network are configured to route data to particular register files, functional units, registers, and memory. Id., ll. 54- 64; col. 5, ll. 3-22; Fig. 5. In our view, the reference provides more than adequate support for the Examiner’s finding that initialization includes configuring the programmable interconnection network. Appellants, further, allege that the combination of Küçükçakar and Batten is improper because neither reference suggests choosing of the elements in the manner proposed. (App. Br. 13.) As the Examiner notes (Ans. 14), Appellants’ characterization of the Examiner’s reasoning in support of the combination is factually incorrect. Moreover, express suggestion in the references is not a requirement to establish obviousness. “[W]hen a patent ‘simply arranges old elements with each performing the same function it had been known to perform’ and yields no more than one would expect from such an arrangement, the combination 5 Appeal 2008-0420 Application 10/301,372 is obvious.” KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 127 S. Ct. 1727, 1740 (2007) (quoting Sakraida v. Ag Pro, Inc., 425 U.S. 273, 282 (1976)). We thus sustain the rejection of claim 1, not being persuaded of error in the rejection. We also sustain the rejection of claim 2. Not only do Appellants fail to demonstrate error in the Examiner’s position (e.g., Ans. 15), but we also observe that Appellants seem to read features into the claim that are not required by the language of the claim. The “programming model” as set forth in the claim, by the terms of the claim, is not necessarily used for any purpose. We sustain the rejection of claim 5. We are not persuaded of error in the Examiner’s position (e.g, Ans. 16), particularly in view of the column 5 sections of Küçükçakar referenced by the Examiner. Because we have considered a representative claim in each group argued by Appellants, we sustain the rejection of claims 1, 2, 5, 6, 8, 9, 12, 13, 15, 16, 19, and 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Küçükçakar and Batten. Turning to the § 103(a) rejection of claims 3, 10, and 17 over Küçükçakar, Batten, and Tremblay, Appellants respond to the rejection of claim 3 by alleging that some features in the instant disclosure are not found in the prior art. As we have indicated, such an argument fails to show nonobviousness of the claimed subject matter. “What matters is the objective reach of the claim. If the claim extends to what is obvious, it is 6 Appeal 2008-0420 Application 10/301,372 invalid under § 103.” KSR, 127 S. Ct. at 1742. We sustain the rejection of claims 3, 10, and 17.1 We sustain the § 103(a) rejection of claims 4, 11, and 18 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Küçükçakar, Batten, Tremblay, and Hocevar. We need only refer to the Examiner’s responsive arguments at pages 18 through 20 of the Answer as they apply to claim 4. We find Appellants’ position unavailing. Finally, we also sustain the § 103 rejection of claims 7, 14, and 21 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Küçükçakar, Batten, and Fisher. We have considered Appellants arguments in support of claim 7. However, as the Examiner indicates, the test for obviousness is not whether the features of one reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of another reference. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of those references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981). It is not necessary that the inventions of the references be physically combinable to render 1 The Examiner sets forth substantially the same rejection of claim 3 in the Answer (at 7-8) and the Final Rejection (at 6-7), and in particular relies upon the same teachings in Tremblay in each paper. We have not considered new arguments that Appellants raise at page 8 in the Reply Brief, which could have been timely presented in the Appeal Brief. Appellants’ waiting until after the Examiner’s Answer to raise arguments that could have been presented earlier, thus avoiding the Examiner’s response in the Answer, is improper. See Optivus Tech., Inc. v. Ion Beam Applications S.A., 469 F.3d 978, 989 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (an issue not raised in an opening brief is waived). In any event, the new arguments are not commensurate with the actual requirements of claim 3. 7 Appeal 2008-0420 Application 10/301,372 obvious the invention under review. In re Sneed, 710 F.2d 1544, 1550 (Fed. Cir. 1983). CONCLUSION The rejections of claims 1-21 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) are affirmed. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). AFFIRMED rwk Lisa K. Jorgenson STMICROELECTRONICS, INC. 1310 Electronics Drive Carrollton TX 75006 8 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation