Ex parte Kahle et al.

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Apr 29, 1999

08289801 (B.P.A.I. Apr. 29, 1999)

Application for patent filed August 12, 1994. According to1
appellants, this application is a continuation of Application 08/001,867,
filed January 8, 1993 (abandoned).
1
Paper No. 24
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(2) is not binding precedent of the Board.
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_______________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
_______________
Ex parte JAMES A. KAHLE,
CHIN-CHENG KAU and
DAVID S. LEVITAN
______________
Appeal No. 96-2445
Application 08/289,8011
_______________
ON BRIEF
_______________
Before THOMAS, JERRY SMITH and FLEMING, Administrative Patent
Judges.
THOMAS, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal No. 96-2445
Application 08/289,801
2
Appellants have appealed to the Board from the examiner's
final rejection of claims 9 through 16, which constitute all
the claims remaining in the application.
Representative independent claim 9, is reproduced below:
9. A method for increased instruction dispatch
efficiency in a superscalar processor system having an
instruction queue for receiving instructions in an application
specified sequential order and loading a group of instructions
in parallel into an associated instruction buffer and an
instruction dispatch unit for dispatching instructions from
said associated instruction buffer to a plurality of execution
units on an opportunistic basis, said method comprising the
steps of:
periodically determining if an instruction within a first
group of instructions within said associated instruction
buffer has been dispatched to one of said plurality of
execution units;
serially shifting remaining instructions within said
associated instruction buffer in said application specified
sequential order in response to a determination that an
instruction within said first group of instructions within
said associated instruction buffer has been dispatched; and
selectively loading said associated instruction buffer
with an additional group of instructions in parallel in said
application specified sequential order utilizing only a
portion of a second group of instructions within said
instruction queue in response to said shifting of said
remaining instructions.
Appeal No. 96-2445
Application 08/289,801
We note that page 2 of the Answer lists three additional references2
cited by the examiner. Since they have not been relied upon in the
formulation of any rejection of any claim on appeal, they have not been
considered.
3
The following references are relied on by the examiner:2
Boufarah et al. (Boufarah) 5,127,091 June 30, 1992
Rasbold et al. (Rasbold) 5,202,975 Apr. 13,
1993
(filed June 10, 1992)
Claims 9 through 16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
As evidence of obviousness, the examiner relies upon Rasbold
in view of Boufarah.
Rather than repeat the positions of the appellants and
the examiner, reference is made to the brief and the answer
for the respective details thereof.
OPINION
We reverse the outstanding rejection of all pending
claims on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 103. In rendering this
decision, we assume for the sake of argument that both
Appeal No. 96-2445
Application 08/289,801
4
references relied upon would have been properly combinable
within 35 U.S.C. § 103 from an artisan's perspective.
Our study of the claims on appeal indicates that the
subject matter of method independent claim 9 is mirrored in
apparatus independent claim 12 on appeal. The body of each
independent claim reflects subject matter and specific
elements previously recited in the preamble of each respective
claim including the loadability of instructions in parallel
into an associated instruction buffer. Claim 9 further
recites the feature of “serially shifting remaining
instructions within said associated instruction buffer.”
Appellants argue at page 6 of the brief that Rasbold does not
show or suggest in any way this feature, and also argue at two
locations on page 7 of the brief that Boufarah does not teach
or suggest the same feature. With this
thrice argued position of the appellants, we agree.
There is no teaching or suggestion or structural showing
of such feature in either reference including Figure 3 of
Boufarah, which figure appears to most structurally relate to
the disclosed and claimed invention of any of the figures of
the two references relied upon. As disclosed, this serial
Appeal No. 96-2445
Application 08/289,801
5
shifting operation claimed is provided by the shifting
capabilities immediately preceding or associated with the
instruction buffer 54 in the various portions of Figure 2. In
contrast, the multiplex network 52 in Figure 3 of Boufarah
does not perform the required shifting operations “within” the
associated instruction buffers 36 or 38 above it in Figure 3.
Any shifting operations that may be attributed to the
multiplex network 52 in this figure clearly occur after but
not contemporaneous or within either of the instruction
buffers 36 and 38. Inasmuch as there are no structural
figures comparable to Figure 3 of Boufarah in Rasbold, the
written description portion of Rasbold relied upon by the
examiner as to this feature does not appear to us to teach
the subject matter of the noted shifting operation clause in
each independent claim on appeal.
For his part, the examiner's position as to this feature
appears to generally relate only to a time sequential or
serial instruction sequencing operations. That each
respective reference may in some manner serially shift
instructions in time is not necessarily dispositive of the
requirement to meet the claimed feature of serially shifting
Appeal No. 96-2445
Application 08/289,801
6
instructions within an instruction buffer. The examiner's
position appears to rely upon shifting operations that may
fairly be attributed to the operation of the circuits within
each reference outside of but not within an instruction
buffer.
Therefore, in view of the foregoing, the decision of the
examiner rejecting independent claims 9 and 12 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 must be reversed. As such, the rejection of the
respective dependent claims of these claims also cannot be
sustained.
Appeal No. 96-2445
Application 08/289,801
7
The decision of the examiner is reversed.
REVERSED
JAMES D. THOMAS )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
)
JERRY SMITH ) BOARD OF
PATENT
Administrative Patent Judge ) APPEALS AND
) INTERFERENCES
)
)
MICHAEL R. FLEMING )
Administrative Patent Judge )

Appeal No. 96-2445
Application 08/289,801
8
JDT/cam
Appeal No. 96-2445
Application 08/289,801
9
Andrew J. Dillon
FELSMAN, BRADLEY, GUNTER & DILLON, LLP
Suite 350, Lakewood on the Park
7600B North Capital of Texas Hwy.
Austin, TX 78731