Ex Parte Mimar

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 22, 2016

10357632 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 22, 2016)

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.
10/357,632 02/03/2003 Tibet Mimar 4358P 5838
7590 09/22/2016
Tibet Mimar
1040 Gloucester Ct.
Sunnyvale, CA 94087
EXAMINER
CALDWELL, ANDREW T
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2183
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/22/2016 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________
Ex parte TIBET MIMAR
____________________

Appeal 2015-000376
Application 10/357,632
Technology Center 2100
____________________

Before JOHNNY A. KUMAR, NORMAN H. BEAMER, and
JOYCE CRAIG, Administrative Patent Judges.

CRAIG, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
Final Rejection of claims 45–61, which constitute of all the claims pending
in this application.2 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.

1 According to Appellant, the real party in interest is the named inventor, Dr.
Tibet Mimar. App. Br. 3.
2 Claims 1–44 have been canceled. App. Br. 54.
Appeal 2015-000376
Application 10/357,632

2
INVENTION
Appellant’s invention relates to flexible vector modes of operation for
single-instruction multiple-data (SIMD) processors. Abstract; Spec 1.
Claim 45 is illustrative and reads as follows, with Appellant’s designation of
limitation letters shown in italics:
45. An execution unit for use in a computer system for
operably pairing elements of two vector operands based on a
user-defined mapping and carrying out a vector operation on said
paired elements, the execution unit comprising:
a first input vector register and a second input vector
register for holding respective first and second source vector
operands on which said vector operation is to be carried out,
wherein each of said first and second input vector registers holds
a plurality of vector elements;
[A] at least one control vector register for holding third
source vector operand of a computer instruction, said at least one
control vector register comprising part of a vector register file,
and including same number of vector elements as said first input
vector register;
[B] means for loading said first input vector register and
said second input vector register, and said at least one control
vector register;
[C] a first select logic coupled to said first input vector
register for selecting from elements of said first source vector for
each vector element position in accordance with said at least one
control vector register;
[D] a second select logic coupled to said second input
vector register for selecting from elements of said second source
vector for each vector element position in accordance with said
at least one control vector register;
a plurality of operators for carrying out said vector
operation, wherein said plurality of operators operate upon the
elements selected by said first select logic and said second select
logic; and
Appeal 2015-000376
Application 10/357,632

3
[E] a vector accumulator for accumulation of results of
said plurality of operators.
REJECTIONS
Claim 60 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, as
indefinite.
Claims 45–48 and 50–61 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over the combination of Longhenry et al. (US 5,991,865;
issued Nov. 23, 1999) and Wade et al. (US 5,872,987; issued Feb. 16, 1999).
Claim 49 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over the combination of Longhenry, Wade, and van Hook et al. (US
5,864,703; issued Jan. 26, 1999).

ANALYSIS
We have considered Appellant’s arguments, but do not find them
persuasive of error. We agree with and adopt as our own the Examiner’s
findings of facts and conclusions as set forth in the Answer (Ans. 21–33)
and in the Action from which this appeal was taken (Final Act. 2–29). We
provide the following explanation for emphasis.

Indefiniteness Rejection of Claim 60
In rejecting dependent claim 60 as indefinite, the Examiner concluded
that the claim fails to inform an artisan of ordinary skill about the scope of
the invention with reasonable certainty because the limitation “said vector
register file,” given its broadest reasonable interpretation, is such that an
artisan of ordinary skill would read it as reasonably referring either to the
“primary vector register file” introduced in claim 60 or “the vector register
file” introduced in independent claim 55, from which claim 60 depends.
Appeal 2015-000376
Application 10/357,632

4
Final Act. 3–4; Ans. 27. Recognizing that the patent drafter is in the best
position to resolve ambiguity in patent claims, the Examiner explained how
the indefiniteness issues may be resolved to overcome the rejection. Final
Act. 4. Halliburton Energy Servs., Inc. v. M-I LLC, 514 F.3d 1244, 1255
(Fed. Cir. 2008).
We find Appellant’s argument that “[t]here is no vagueness or
confusion” unpersuasive and insufficient to overcome the rejection. See Br.
13. We agree with the Examiner that the claim can be reasonably
interpreted in two different ways and is thus indefinite. See Ans. 27.
Accordingly, we sustain the 35 U.S.C. § 112, paragraph 2, rejection of claim
60.

Obviousness Rejections of Claims 45–61
Independent Claim 45
In rejecting independent claim 45, the Examiner found that Longhenry
teaches all of the limitations except the limitation “said at least one control
vector register comprising part of a vector register file,” for which the
Examiner relied on Wade in combination with Longhenry. Final Act. 4–8.
Specifically, the Examiner found that Longhenry teaches an ORU value that
is part of an instruction word (i.e., control vector) that would have to be
stored in a temporary register prior to use. Final Act. 6. For an explicit
teaching of a register, the Examiner relied on Wade’s teaching of a mask
register in which mask bits are determined dynamically at runtime. Id.
(citing Wade col. 2, ll. 2–14, col. 16, ll. 46–62); Ans. 29. Acknowledging
that Wade does not explicitly teach that its register is part of the vector
register file, as the term “register file” is usually used in the art, the
Appeal 2015-000376
Application 10/357,632

5
Examiner relied on the knowledge of a person of ordinary skill in the art in
concluding that it would have been obvious to move the register into the
register file. Final Act. 7; Ans. 29–30 (citing KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc.,
550 U.S. 398 (2007)).
Claim 45 – Limitation A
Appellant contends the Examiner erred in finding that the
combination of Longhenry and Wade teaches or suggests recited limitation
A because:
(1) Neither Longhenry nor Wade teaches a control vector register that
is part of a vector register file. Id. at 15–19, 24, 28.
(2) Longhenry does not have a third source vector operand. Id. at 21,
24.
(3) In Longhenry, mapping is part of program code determined at
compile time, while claim 45 requires mapping determined at
run/execution time. Id. at 17–18, 24, 28.
(4) Neither Longhenry nor Wade teaches a control vector register with
the same number if vector elements as the other source vector
elements. Id. at 19, 24, 28.
Appellant’s argument A(1) is not persuasive of error because
Appellant has not provided persuasive evidence or explanation to rebut the
Examiner’s finding that it would have been obvious to an artisan of ordinary
skill to move the register into the register file. See Final Act. 7. We agree
with the Examiner that none of the proffered declarations addresses the
combined teachings of Longhenry and Wade or rebuts the Examiner’s
factual findings and conclusions with regard to the advantages and
obviousness of moving the register into the register file. See Ans. 22–25.
Appeal 2015-000376
Application 10/357,632

6
Moreover, Appellant’s argument on page 22 of the Appeal Brief is directed
only to the teachings of Wade and fails to address the combined teachings of
Longhenry and Wade. See Br. 22; In re Mouttet, 686 F.3d 1322, 1332 (Fed.
Cir. 2012) (citing In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981)) (“The test
for obviousness is what the combined teachings of the references would
have suggested to those having ordinary skill in the art.”).
Appellant’s argument A(2) is also unpersuasive of error. The
Examiner found that the cited ORU value of Longhenry holds routing
settings (a control) for each of the eight slots (thus one for each element of
the source vector). Final Act. 5; Ans. 27–28. Referring to an earlier filing,3
Appellant argues that Wade’s mask bits are not specified as an operand of a
vector instruction. Br. 21. Appellant also argues that, in Longhenry, the
instruction word determines the operation of an instruction, not the source
vector operands. Br. 21. Again, Appellant attacks the references
individually and does not address the Examiner’s actual rejection, which was
based on the combined teachings of the references. Mouttet, 686 F.3d at
1332. The Examiner found that Longhenry teaches a control operand that is
static, and Wade teaches a dynamic control operand that is stored in a
register to permit it to be dynamic and the advantages of the same. Ans. 29.
Appellant’s argument A(3) is not persuasive of error because
Appellant attacks Longhenry individually even though the Examiner relied

3 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(iv) states that, except as provided for in §§ 41.41 (Reply
Brief), 41.47 (Oral Hearing) and 41.52 (Rehearing), any arguments or
authorities not included in the appeal brief will be refused consideration by
the Board for purposes of the present appeal. Thus, Appellant’s reference to
and reliance on arguments made only in previous papers is unavailing.
Appeal 2015-000376
Application 10/357,632

7
on the combination of Longhenry and Wade as teaching or suggesting the
disputed features. Mouttet, 686 F.3d at 1332.
We also do not find Appellant’s argument A(4) persuasive of error
because it relies on the disclosure of a patent different from the patent on
which the Examiner relied in rejecting claim 45. See Br. 19.
Claim 45 – Limitation B
Appellant contends the Examiner erred in finding that the
combination of Longhenry and Wade teaches or suggests recited limitation
B because there is no loading of any control vector taught in Longhenry. Br.
19. Appellant further argues that, in Longhenry, “mapping is part of
program code determined at compile time,” while claim 45 requires mapping
determined at “run/execution time.” Id. at 24.
Appellant’s arguments do not persuade us of error. Appellant attacks
Longhenry individually, even though the Examiner relied on the
combination of Longhenry and Wade as teaching or suggesting the disputed
features. Mouttet, 686 F.3d at 1332.
Claim 45 – Limitation C
Appellant contends the Examiner erred in finding that the
combination of Longhenry and Wade teaches or suggests recited limitation
C because Longhenry does not use a control vector register as part of the
vector register file, and neither Longhenry nor Wade uses a control vector
register to control mapping of a first source operand.
For the reasons discussed above with regard to Limitation A, we do
not find Appellant’s arguments persuasive of error.
Appeal 2015-000376
Application 10/357,632

8
Claim 45 – Limitation D
Appellant contends the Examiner erred in finding that the
combination of Longhenry and Wade teaches or suggests recited limitation
D because Longhenry does not teach mapping the second source vector. Br.
22–24. Appellant argues that the Examiner’s proffered motivation for
extending Longhenry to map both source vectors “is circular, with self-
dependent logic based on indefinite words of benefit.” Id. at 22. Appellant
further argues that Longhenry teaches away from any extension of mapping
a second source vector. Id. at 24–26.
Appellant’s arguments are not persuasive of error. The Examiner
found that Longhenry teaches that a source vector can be mapped and
identifies advantages for doing that. Final Act. 8; Ans. 30. The Examiner
concluded that extending that advantage to the other source vector would be
an obvious modification. Id. at 7–8. Appellant presents no persuasive
explanation or evidence to rebut the Examiner’s factual findings and
conclusion. Moreover, we agree with the Examiner that Appellant’s
arguments regarding memory width are not persuasive because the plain
language of claim 45 does not limit the number of bits in the instruction
word. See Ans. 30–31. Moreover, a teaching away requires a reference to
actually criticize, discredit, or otherwise discourage the claimed solution.
See In re Fulton, 391 F.3d 1195, 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Appellant has not
pointed to any disclosure in Longhenry that actually criticizes, discredits, or
otherwise discourages mapping the second source vector.
Claim 45 – Reason to Modify Longhenry
Appellant contends that the Examiner has not provided clear
articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal
Appeal 2015-000376
Application 10/357,632

9
conclusion of obviousness with regard to modifying Longhenry to use a
control vector register as part of the vector register file. Br. 26.
We disagree with Appellant. The Examiner's reasoning need not
appear in, or be suggested by, one or more of the references on which the
Examiner relies. Instead, a reason to combine teachings from the prior art
“may be found in explicit or implicit teachings within the references
themselves, from the ordinary knowledge of those skilled in the art, or from
the nature of the problem to be solved.” WMS Gaming Inc. v. Int'l Game
Tech., 184 F.3d 1339, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (citing In re Rouffet, 149 F.3d
1350, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 1998)). “Under the correct [obviousness] analysis, any
need or problem known in the field of endeavor at the time of invention and
addressed by the patent can provide a reason for combining the elements in
the manner claimed.” KSR, 550 U.S. at 420. Indeed, the Supreme Court has
indicated that:
[It is error to] assum[e] that a person of ordinary skill
attempting to solve a problem will be led only to those elements
of prior art designed to solve the same problem. . . . Common
sense teaches . . . that familiar items may have obvious uses
beyond their primary purposes, and in many cases a person of
ordinary skill will be able to fit the teachings of multiple patents
together like pieces of a puzzle.
KSR, 550 U.S. at 420 (citation omitted).
Consistent with the guidelines stated in KSR, the Examiner identifies
improvements made by the combination. Final Act. 6–7. The Examiner
made findings with respect to the stated reason as to why one of ordinary
skill in the art would have modified Longhenry to use a control vector
register as part of the vector register file in the manner suggested by Wade.
Final Act 6–7; Ans. 29–30. Therefore, the Examiner has articulated how the
Appeal 2015-000376
Application 10/357,632

10
claimed features are suggested by the proposed combination of the reference
teachings with some rational underpinning. See KSR, 550 U.S. at 418.
Claim 45 – Change to Longhenry’s Principle of Operation
Appellant contends the Examiner erred in combining Longhenry and
Wade because “making changes to Longhenry to extend it to map both
vectors and to modify it to use control vector register will change the
principle of operation” of Longhenry. Br. 26. Appellant cites to different
portions of Longhenry and further contends the proposed modifications
would render Longhenry unfit for its intended purpose. Id.
Appellant’s arguments do not persuade us of error. As explained by
the Examiner, “the principle of operation of Longhenry is to execute
instructions, and modifying Longhenry to have a select for both source
operands, instead of only one, does not change this.” Ans. 31. Moreover, it
would have been within the skill of an ordinarily-skilled artisan to use the
known techniques of using a control vector register and mapping both
vectors. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 417 (2007) (“[I]f a
technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary
skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the
same way, using the technique is obvious unless its actual application is
beyond his or her skill” (citations omitted)). Appellant has not persuaded us
that combining the respective familiar elements of the cited references in the
manner proffered by the Examiner would have been “uniquely challenging
or difficult for one of ordinary skill in the art” at the time of Appellant’s
invention. Leapfrog Enters., Inc. v. Fisher-Price, Inc., 485 F.3d 1157, 1162
(Fed. Cir. 2007) (citing KSR, 550 U.S. at 418).
Appeal 2015-000376
Application 10/357,632

11
For these reasons, we are not persuaded by Appellant’s arguments that
the Examiner erred in finding the combination of Longhenry and Wade
teaches or suggests the disputed features of claim 45. Therefore, we sustain
the 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of independent claim 45.
Dependent Claim 46
Appellant contends the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 46, which
depends from claim 45, because Longhenry does not teach controlling
operations “wherein part of said at least one control vector register provide
means to also control the selection of one operation from a plurality of
operations for each vector element position,” as claim 46 requires. Br. 31.
In particular, Appellant argues that Longhenry supports only two possible
operations per vector element per vector instruction. Id. at 30–32 (citing
Longhenry col. 8, ll. 62–65).
We are not persuaded the Examiner erred. The Examiner interpreted
the claim in such a way that “vector elements can have different operations
than each other, that is, some can have A, some can have B.” Ans. 32. We
agree with the Examiner that claim 46 does not expressly require that every
element have a different, unique operation from the other elements. See id.
Moreover, Appellant has not persuasively shown that the Examiner’s
interpretation is unreasonable, overly broad, or inconsistent with the
Specification. Thus, we find that the Examiner’s broad, reasonable
interpretation of the claim supports the Examiners position. Accordingly,
we sustain the 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of claim 46.
Dependent Claim 47
Appellant contends the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 47, which
depends from claim 45, for the same reasons presented for claim 45. Br. 32.
Appeal 2015-000376
Application 10/357,632

12
For the reasons discussed above for claim 45, we sustain the 35 U.S.C. §
103(a) rejection of claim 47.
Dependent Claim 48
With regard to claim 48, which depends from claim 45, Appellant
contends the Examiner erred because “[m]ask bits of the present application
are user-defined bits as part of the control vector that are not conditional,
i.e., they are not generated or derived from condition flags as result of prior
instruction execution.” Br. 32. Appellant further argues that “in Wade
condition flags affect the operation of arithmetic unit and both loading-and-
storing of vector elements, whereas condition flags of instant claims only
affect storing of respective output of computation unit ….” Id. at 33.
Appellant’s arguments do not persuade us of Examiner error. We
agree with the Examiner that the plain language of claim 48 does not require
that the mask bits be unconditional. Ans. 32. Moreover, the Examiner has
shown that both the claimed mask bits and condition flags are taught or
suggested by the cited prior art combination. See id. We also agree with the
Examiner that Wade’s teaching of condition flags affecting storing is
sufficient to teach or suggest the disputed limitation, even if the condition
flags in Wade also affect loading. See id.
Appellant further contends that Wade is not analogous art. We
disagree. “Two separate tests define the scope of analogous art: (1) whether
the art is from the same field of endeavor, regardless of the problem
addressed and, (2) if the reference is not within the field of the inventor's
endeavor, whether the reference still is reasonably pertinent to the particular
problem with which the inventor is involved.” In re Klein, 647 F.3d 1343,
1348 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (quoting In re Bigio, 381 F.3d 1320, 1325 (Fed. Cir.
Appeal 2015-000376
Application 10/357,632

13
2004)). Although Appellant does not address whether Ward is from the
same field of endeavor, we find that it is.
Appellant’s Specification describes that “[t]he invention relates
generally to the field of processor chips and specifically to the field of
single-instruction multiple-data (SIMD) processors.” Spec. 1. Appellant’s
Specification further describes “pairing vector elements as inputs to each of
the arithmetic or logical operation units of a processor, such as a SIMD
processor.” Spec. 11. As such, we find Appellant’s field of endeavor relates
to the field of parallel processor operations.
Ward’s invention “relates generally to the field of digital computer
systems, and more particularly to massively parallel computer systems” such
as those using SIMD processors. Ward col. 1, ll. 28–30, col. 3, ll. 1–49.
Ward further describes providing “a new and improved auxiliary processor
for use in connection with a massively parallel computer system” that
“includes a plurality of processing nodes and at least one control node
interconnected by a network,” which “facili[t]ates the transfer of data among
the processing nodes and of commands from the control node to the
processing nodes.” Ward col. 3, ll. 53–60.
Thus, Ward relates to the same field of endeavor and, therefore, is
analogous art. See Klein, 647 F.3d at 1348. In view of this finding, we need
not address Appellant’s contentions (Br. 36) regarding the second, separate,
test for analogous art. Klein, 647 F.3d at 1348.
For these reasons, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in finding
the combination of Longhenry and Wade teach or suggest the disputed
limitation of claim 48. Accordingly, we sustain the 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
rejection of claim 48.
Appeal 2015-000376
Application 10/357,632

14
Dependent Claim 50
Appellant contends the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 50, which
depends from claim 45, because the combination of Longhenry and Wade
does not teach or suggest the further limitation recited in claim 50. Br. 37–
38. In particular, Appellant argues that “Longhenry does not support three
different instruction formats consisting of identity mapping, one-element
broadcast mapping, and any element-to-any-element mapping,” as claim 50
requires. Id. at 37. Appellant argues in a conclusory manner that Longhenry
“has only one instruction format” and “requires [a] third source operand
always,” while using a third source vector operand is optional in the claim.
Id. at 38.
Appellant’s arguments do not persuade us of error. Claim 50 does not
recite “three different instruction formats consisting of identity mapping,
one-element broadcast mapping, and any element-to-any-element mapping,”
as Appellant contends. See Br. 55–56. Moreover, the Examiner identified
Figure 4 of Longhenry as teaching or suggesting the disputed limitations.
Final Act. 9–10. Appellant, however, presents no persuasive explanation or
evidence to rebut the Examiner’s findings with regard to Longhenry Figure
4. See id. Furthermore, Appellant did not point out or otherwise identity the
one instruction format that Appellant asserts Longhenry teaches. See Br.
37–38. Accordingly, we sustain the 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of claim
50.
Independent Claim 51
Claim 51 recites limitations similar to those recited in independent
claim 45. Br. 54, 56. In arguing that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim
51, Appellant refers to and relies on the arguments made for claim 45,
Appeal 2015-000376
Application 10/357,632

15
discussed above. Br. 38–40. Specifically, Appellant argues that
“Longhenry does not teach a control vector, as part of a vector register file,
to control mapping of first and second source vector elements.” Br. 39
(Limitations A). Appellant also argues that “Longhenry does not support
definition of mapping second source vector ‘routing’ of elements in
accordance with a third source vector using an existing vector register of
vector register file.” Id. (Limitation B). For the reasons discussed above
for claim 45, we are not persuaded of Examiner error, and, therefore, we
sustain the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of claim 51.
Dependent Claim 52
Appellant contends the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 52, which
depends from claim 51, for the same reasons Appellant gave in support of
the patentability of claim 51, discussed above. Br. 41. Appellant further
argues that “at most a total of two different operations could be specified for
a given vector instruction,” which we find is the same argument Appellant
made for the patentability of claim 46, discussed above. See id.; Br. 30–31.
For the reasons discussed above for claims 46 and 51, we sustain the 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of claim 52.
Dependent Claim 53
Appellant contends the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 53, which
depends from claim 51, because Longhenry does not teach Limitations A
and B of claim 51, discussed above, and Wade does not teach elements F, G,
and H of claim 53, discussed below. Br. 44.
Appellant argues that Wade does not support “non-conditional mask
bits defined as part of control vector register containing also operation select
and mapping information. Br. 44 (Limitation F). Appellant also argues that
Appeal 2015-000376
Application 10/357,632

16
Wade does not support “two different co-existing and operating controls for
storage of output elements,” as claim 53 requires. Br. 44 (Limitation G).
We understand these arguments as the arguments Appellant presented for
claim 48. See Br. 32–37. For the reasons discussed above for dependent
claim 48, Appellant’s arguments are unpersuasive.
Appellant further contends that Examiner erred in rejecting claim 53
because Wade does not teach a “plurality of condition flags per each vector
element position,” as recited in claim 53. Br. 41, 44 (Limitation H).
Appellant’s arguments do not persuade us of Examiner error. The Examiner
found that Wade teaches that a mask register can be used to selectively
enable or disable the writing of the result to a destination register (Wade col.
16, ll. 2–14), and that these mask bits can be generated based on the
condition flags of a prior instructions execution (Wade col. 16, ll. 46–62),
and that there can be a plurality of vector masks for a particular instruction
(Wade col 41, ll. 39–58), one of which is selected for each execution. Final
Act. 14–15. Appellant acknowledges that Wade teaches “generated
conditional mask bits” (Br. 35) and presents no persuasive explanation or
evidence to rebut the Examiner’s findings with regard to the cited portions
of Wade.
The Examiner further found that Wade teaches an advantage of
having a plurality of masks for a particular instruction —“to process
exceptions or errors that occur.” Final Act. 15. Appellant contends the
Examiner erred, and Longhenry teaches away from doing that, because
“there is no possibility of overflow or underflow exceptions in
Longhenry or the present method.” Br. 42. Appellant’s arguments are
unpersuasive. A teaching away requires a reference to actually criticize,
Appeal 2015-000376
Application 10/357,632

17
discredit, or otherwise discourage the claimed solution. See In re Fulton,
391 F.3d 1195, 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Appellant has not pointed to any
disclosure in Wade or Longhenry that actually criticizes, discredits, or
otherwise discourages the disputed limitations of claim 53.
For these reasons, we sustain the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
rejection of claim 53.
Dependent claims 49 and 54
Appellant contends in a conclusory manner that the Examiner erred in
rejecting claims 49 and 54 because “Longhenry does not teach a vector
accumulator that is separate from vector operation unit and vector register
file.” Br. 44.
Appellant does not address the combinations of prior art references
proposed by the Examiner. Mouttet, 686 F.3d at 1332. Moreover, Rule
41.37 “require[s] more substantive arguments in an appeal brief than a mere
recitation of the claim elements and a naked assertion that the corresponding
elements were not found in the prior art.” In re Lovin, 652 F.3d 1349, 1357
(Fed. Cir. 2011). Accordingly, we are not persuaded by Appellant’s
arguments that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 49 and 54, and we
sustain the rejections.
Independent Claim 55
Appellant contends the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 55 because
the combination of Longhenry and Wade do not teach or suggest limitations
A, B, and C of claim 55. Br. 49–50. Appellant further contends the
combination of Longhenry and Wade does not teach the recited “control
vector” limitation. Id. at 44–46. We agree with the Examiner that these
arguments are the same as those Appellant made for claim 45, and we do not
Appeal 2015-000376
Application 10/357,632

18
find them persuasive for the reasons discussed above for claim 45. See id. at
24, 49–50; Ans. 32. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. §
103(a) rejection of claim 55.
Dependent Claim 56
Appellant contends the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 56, which
depends from claim 55, because Longhenry supports only two operations per
instruction per each vector element position and, thus, does not teach the
limitation “a multitude of operations that are available for each vector
element position,” recited in claim 56. Br. 50. Appellant contends
“multitude” means “a very large number.” Id.
We are not persuaded of Examiner error. Appellant cites no
dictionary in support of the proffered definition of “multitude.” See Br. 50.
Moreover, Appellant does not persuasively explain or evince why
Longhenry’s teachings of two operations, identified by the Examiner, would
not, when combined with the cited teachings of Wade, have suggested the
recited “multitude of operations.” Moreover, the Examiner rejected claim
56 for obviousness (Final Act. 4), not anticipation, but Appellant relies at
least in part on an anticipation argument directed to independent claim 55
(Br. 51). The test for obviousness is what the combined teachings of the
references would have suggested to those having ordinary skill in the art.
Mouttet, 686 F.3d at 1332. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of claim 56.
Dependent Claim 57
In contending the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 57, which
depends from claim 55, Appellant points to and relies on the arguments
Appellant presented for claims 53 and 55. Br. 51. For the reasons discussed
Appeal 2015-000376
Application 10/357,632

19
above for claims 53 and 55, we sustain the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
rejection of claim 57.
Dependent Claim 58
Appellant contends the Examiner erred in rejecting clam 58, which
depends from claim 57, because the “Examiner’s statement of ‘depending
upon the program, it is possible for program condition flag for each element
to be true at all times’ is self conflicting since ‘depending upon the program
is the opposite of being true at all times.’” Br. 52. Appellant also refers to
and relies on arguments made for claims 53 and 57 that Wade does not teach
the recited limitation “selecting at least one of a plurality of condition flags
for each respective vector element in accordance with a vector instruction.”
Br. 52.
We are not persuaded the Examiner erred. We understand the
Examiner’s statement to mean what it says—that Wade teaches or suggests
that, “depending on the program, it is possible for the condition flag for each
element to be true at all times.” Final Act. 20. Moreover, for the reasons
discussed above for claims 53 and 57, we are not persuaded of Examiner
error. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection
of claim 58.
Dependent Claim 59
Appellant contends the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 59, which
depends form claim 55, because the cited portion of Longhenry “is silent
about vector elements being any different than 8 vector elements, or being a
floating point number.” Br. 52. Appellant also argues that Longhenry
teaches away from the disputed limitation because “it has a different unit
Appeal 2015-000376
Application 10/357,632

20
(FPU) for floating point operations.” Br. 52 (citing Longhenry Fig. 2, FPU
322 unit).
Appellant’s arguments are unpersuasive. Claim 59 recites that “each
vector element contains a fixed-point number or a floating-point number.”
The plain language of the claim requires either a fixed-point number or a
floating-point number, and does not require that each vector element be
capable of containing both fixed-point numbers and a floating-point
numbers, as Appellant argues. See Br. 58. Appellant acknowledges that
Longhenry teaches that each vector element contains a fixed-point number
(Br. 52), which is sufficient to teach or suggest the disputed limitation.
With regard to Appellant’s teaching away argument, Appellant has not
pointed to any disclosure in Longhenry that actually criticizes, discredits, or
otherwise discourages each vector element containing a floating-point
number. See Fulton, 391 F.3d 1195 at 1201.
Claim 59 also recites that “the number of vector elements in each of
said first source vector and said second source vectors is an integer between
8 and 256.” Br. 58. The plain language of the claim does not require that
the number of vector elements in each of said first and second source vectors
be more than one integer between 8 and 256, as Appellant argues. See Br.
52. Appellant acknowledges that Longhenry teaches a number of vector
elements of 8 (Br. 52), which is sufficient to teach or suggest the disputed
limitation.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection
of claim 59.

Appeal 2015-000376
Application 10/357,632

21
Whether The Examiner Considered Appellant’s Declarations
Appellant argues that the Examiner erred in not properly considering
the three expert declarations Appellant filed in support of arguments made in
response to previous office actions. Br. 5–6. In response, the Examiner
explained why the declarations are insufficient to persuade the Examiner
that the rejections were improper, reproducing in the Answer explanations
given in previous office actions. Ans. 22–26; see also Final Act. 28–29;
MPEP 716.01(B). We find no error in the Examiner’s consideration of the
declarations, and note that Appellant presents no persuasive explanation or
evidence to rebut the Examiner’s findings with regard to the declarations.

The Examiner’s Rejection of Appellant’s Amended Specification
Appellant seeks review of the Examiner’s objection to the amended
specification filed on September 11, 2011, on the grounds of new matter.
Br. 8–13; see also Final Act 2–3; 35 U.S.C. § 132(a). Although we have
jurisdiction to consider this matter, which is ordinarily petitionable (see
MPEP § 2163.06.II), it does not appear that Appellant relied on the amended
material to distinguish the invention over the prior art. Consequently, we do
not reach the issue of whether the amended specification contains new
matter and, thus, do not decide the issue of whether the Examiner’s new
matter objection is proper.

DECISION
We affirm the decision of the Examiner rejecting claims 45–61.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv).
Appeal 2015-000376
Application 10/357,632

22

AFFIRMED