Ex parte Kinzelman

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Feb 25, 1999

08073911 (B.P.A.I. Feb. 25, 1999)

Application for patent filed June 9, 1993.1
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journal and (2) is not binding precedent of the Board.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. 13
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_____________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
_____________
Ex parte PAUL M. KINZELMAN
_____________
Appeal No. 96-1714
Application 08/073,9111
______________
ON BRIEF
_______________
Before KRASS, BARRETT and CARMICHAEL, Administrative Patent Judges.
CARMICHAEL, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is an appeal from the final rejection of Claims 2-10, which constitute all the claims
remaining in the application.
Claim 5 reads as follows:
Appeal No. 96-1714
Application 08/073,911
2
5. A method for simulating memory in a computer system comprising the steps, performed by a
simulator of:
allocating, from a memory, a first block of contiguous memory cells;
storing in said memory a model of memory corresponding to a memory device;
assigning a corresponding one of said memory cells of said first block of contiguous memory
cells to said model of memory;
storing a location of said corresponding one of said memory cells of said first block of
contiguous memory cells within said model of memory;
generating a randomly selected computer transaction;
translating a physical bus address which identifies said memory device in said computer system
to a mapped bus address which identifies said model of memory;
predicting an effect of said randomly selected computer transaction on said first block of
contiguous memory cells:
completing said randomly selected computer transaction and storing a result of said completed
randomly selected computer transaction within said first block of contiguous memory cells; and
comparing said predicted effect of said randomly selected computer transaction with the result
of said completed randomly selected computer transaction stored within said first block of contiguous
memory cells.
The examiner’s Answer cites the following prior art:
Rudy 4,862,347 Aug. 29, 1989
OPINION
The claims stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Rudy.
Appeal No. 96-1714
Application 08/073,911
3
Claim 5
We will sustain the rejection of Claim 5 for the reasons set forth by the examiner, amplified as
follows.
Claim 5 relates to a method for using a computer to simulate a memory device. The examiner
sets forth a detailed correspondence of the claimed steps to Rudy, saying that Rudy discloses the
invention substantially as claimed. Examiner’s Answer at 3-4.
Appellant argues that the translating step is not disclosed by Rudy. Appeal Brief at 9.
However, as the examiner points out, Rudy discloses an input permutation memory that stores
translations between a physical bus address 46 and a mapped bus address 50. Appellant did not file
any reply brief to respond to the examiner’s explanation. We agree with the examiner.
Appellant also argues that Rudy fails to disclose the step of storing a location of a memory cell.
Appeal Brief at 11. However, Rudy stores within the memory model the address of such a location.
Column 7, lines 21-42; Figure 10B.
Therefore, Rudy fully discloses the method recited by Claim 5 and we will sustain the rejection.
Claims 2-4, 6-7, and 9
Claims 2-4, 6-7, and 9 stand or fall with Claim 5 because appellants have presented no
arguments for the separate patentability of those claims under 37 CFR § 1.192. Therefore, we will
Appeal No. 96-1714
Application 08/073,911
4
sustain the rejection of Claims 2-4, 6-7, and 9.
Claim 8
According to the examiner, Rudy discloses the claimed subject matter, presumably because
there is an input permutation memory 50 and output permutation memory 78 that may well map to the
same respective locations in first and second memory blocks. Without more reasoning from the
examiner, we are unable to assume the predicted and actual results do in fact map to the same relative
location. Therefore, we will not sustain the rejection.
Claim 10
Claim 10 recites a method including the step of selecting at least one bit, but less than all bits,
from two address fields while selecting all of the bits from two other fields. The Appeal Brief argues
that the examiner never addressed that limitation. The examiner’s Answer fails to address the limitation
or appellant’s argument. Upon our own review of Rudy, with no guidance from the examiner, we do
not immediately see where the limitation is disclosed.
Because the examiner did not set forth a prima facie case of obviousness for Claim 10, we will
not sustain the rejection.
Appeal No. 96-1714
Application 08/073,911
5
CONCLUSION
The rejection of Claims 1-7 and 9 is sustained. The rejection of Claims 8 and 10 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
ERROL A. KRASS )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
) APPEALS AND
LEE E. BARRETT ) INTERFERENCES
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
)
JAMES T. CARMICHAEL )
Administrative Patent Judge )
Appeal No. 96-1714
Application 08/073,911
6
JTR/dal
Appeal No. 96-1714
Application 08/073,911
7
PATENT LAW GROUP
DIGITAL EQUIPMENT CORP.
111 POWDERMILL RD., MS02-3/G3
MAYNARD, MA 01754-1499