Ex Parte Terechko

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Sep 25, 2009

10552076 (B.P.A.I. Sep. 25, 2009)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte ANDREI TERECHKO
____________

Appeal 2009-004042
Application 10/552,076
Technology Center 2100
____________

Decided: September 25, 2009
____________

Before LEE E. BARRETT, LANCE LEONARD BARRY, and
HOWARD B. BLANKENSHIP, Administrative Patent Judges.

BLANKENSHIP, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s final
rejection of claims 1-8, which are all the claims in the application. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse the Examiner’s rejection, pro forma, and enter a new
ground of rejection as permitted by 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b).
Appeal 2009-004042
Application 10/552,076

2

Invention
Appellant’s invention relates to Instruction Level Parallelism (ILP)
processors, and in particular Very Large Instruction Word (VLIW)
architecture.

Representative Claim
1. Data processing system comprising:
- a clustered Instruction Level Parallelism processor,
comprising a plurality of clusters each comprising at least one register
file and at least one functional unit;
- an instruction unit for issuing control signals to said clusters,
wherein said instruction unit is connected to each of said clusters via
respective control connections, and
one or more additional pipeline registers is arranged in said
control connections depending on the distance between said
instruction unit and said clusters, said pipeline registers being adapted
to provide a dedicated direct signal data signal connection between
any two of said clusters.

Prior Art
Nickolls 5,598,408 Jan. 28, 1997
Pechanek 5,659,785 Aug. 19, 1997
Batten 6,269,437 B1 Jul. 31, 2001

Appeal 2009-004042
Application 10/552,076

3
Examiner’s Rejections
Claims 1-3 and 5-7 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Batten and Nickolls.
Claims 4 and 8 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Batten, Nickolls, and Pechanek.1

DISCUSSION
I.
The Standing Rejections
We reverse, pro forma, the Examiner’s rejection of the claims over
the prior art, because the claims are indefinite under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second
paragraph. Rejections of claims over prior art should not be based on
speculation and assumptions as to the scope of the claims. See In re Steele,
305 F.2d 859, 862 (CCPA 1962). We enter a new ground of rejection
against all the claims on appeal, infra.

II.
Definiteness
The function of claims is (1) to point out what the invention is in such
a way as to distinguish it from the prior art; and (2) to define the scope of
protection afforded by the patent. In re Vamco Machine & Tool, Inc., 752
F.2d 1564, 1577 n.5 (Fed. Cir. 1985). The legal standard for definiteness is
whether a claim reasonably apprises those of skill in the art of its scope. In

1 The Examiner is correct in that the objection to the title of the invention,
argued by Appellant in the Appeal Brief as a ground of rejection for our
review, is a matter for petition. See Manual of Patent Examining Procedure
§§ 706.01, 1002.02(c), and 1201 (Eighth ed., Rev. 7, Jul. 2008).
Appeal 2009-004042
Application 10/552,076

4
re Warmerdam, 33 F.3d 1354, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 1994). The inquiry is merely
to determine whether the claims do, in fact, set out and circumscribe a
particular area with a reasonable degree of precision and particularity. In re
Moore, 439 F.2d 1232, 1235 (CCPA 1971). The definiteness of the
language employed must be analyzed -- not in a vacuum, but in light of the
teachings of the prior art and of the particular application disclosure as it
would be interpreted by one possessing the ordinary level of skill in the
pertinent art. Id.

New Ground of Rejection -- 35 U.S.C. § 112, Second Paragraph
We reject claims 1-8 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, as
being indefinite. Claims 1 and 5 are independent. We will discuss claim 1
as representative of the independent claims.
The final portion of claim 1 recites, “one or more additional pipeline
registers is arranged in said control connections depending on the distance
between said instruction unit and said clusters, said pipeline registers being
adapted to provide a dedicated direct signal data signal connection between
any two of said clusters” (emphasis added).
According to Appellant, the subject matter of claim 1 (and claim 5) is
described at Figure 1 and page 4, lines 18 through 29 of the Specification.
Br. 3-4.
Appellant’s disclosure describes a pipeline register P (Figure 1)
arranged in control connections, depending on the distance between the
instruction unit (IFD) and clusters C and D. The disclosure also describes
five pipeline registers P, as depicted in Figure 1, one of which appears in
each connection between clusters A, B, C, and D.
Appeal 2009-004042
Application 10/552,076

5
The Examiner entered a final rejection against the claims under 35
U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, which was withdrawn in the Answer.
However, we have substantially the same concerns as did the Examiner.
The claim is ambiguous with respect to how, or if, the pipeline registers
being “adapted to provide a dedicated direct signal data signal connection
between any two of said clusters” are the same as the “one or more
additional pipeline registers” arranged in the control connections.
In response to the § 112 rejection, Appellant did not attempt to
explain how the “pipeline register” limitations are to be interpreted.
Appellant, instead, reproduced text from the Specification and alleged that
“[f]rom the description in the filed application in which the signal
connection featured in claim 1 is provided verbatim, one can garner how the
dedicated signal connection is realized.” Br. 7. Appellant did not explain or
elaborate on how one might “garner.”
We reproduce the relevant section of the Specification below,
although our emphasis differs from that provided by Appellant in the Appeal
Brief.
In Fig. 1 a clustered VLIW architecture with a full point-
to-point connectivity topology according to a first embodiment
is shown. The architecture includes four clusters, namely
clusters A, B, C and D, which are fully connected to each other
and an instruction fetch/dispatch unit IFD being connected to
each cluster A-D via control connections paths CA-CD.
Accordingly, there is always a dedicated direct data signal
connection present between any two clusters with pipeline
registers P arranged between each two clusters. The latency of
an inter-cluster transfer of data is always the same for every
inter-cluster connection independent of the actual distance
between the clusters on the chip. The actual distance on the
chip between the clusters A and C, and clusters B and D is
Appeal 2009-004042
Application 10/552,076

6
considered to be longer than the distance between the clusters A
and D, A and B, B and C, as well as C and D. Therefore, a
pipeline register P is arranged in the control connection paths
CC and CD, in order to pipeline the control signals to remote
clusters C, D.

Spec. 4:18-29 (emphasis added).
In a careful reading of the material at page 4, and in view of the earlier
description of a “dedicated direct connection” between clusters due to “full
point-to-point connectivity topology” in the first full paragraph of
Specification page 2, Appellant appears to describe a “dedicated direct data
signal connection” by means of the direct connections between the clusters
shown in Figure 1, which have a pipeline register in each connection.2 Note
that the “dedicated direct data signal connection present between any two
clusters” is established at page 4 before any mention of the pipeline register
in the control connection paths CC and CD (i.e., “[a]ccordingly, there is
always” comes before the discussion of the pipeline register in the control
paths).
The pipeline register in the control connection paths, in order to
pipeline the control signals, is not described as being adapted to provide a
dedicated direct signal data signal between any two of the clusters. At best,
the five pipeline registers in the direct connections between the clusters may
be “adapted to provide” a dedicated direct data signal connection between
any two of the clusters. However, the five pipeline registers are not arranged
in the control connections, and are greater in number than the one, two,

2 Although of lesser importance, it is unclear what the claimed “dedicated
direct signal data signal connection” might be, when the disclosure describes
a “dedicated direct data signal connection.” Appellant claims more
“signals” than described.
Appeal 2009-004042
Application 10/552,076

7
three, and four pipeline registers covered by a recitation of “one or more”
pipeline registers.
We conclude that one skilled in the art cannot reasonably ascertain
how, or if, the same pipeline register or registers are both arranged in the
control connections and somehow “adapted to provide” a dedicated direct
signal data signal connection between any two of the clusters. The claims
thus fail to pass muster under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph.

DECISION
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-8 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) is
reversed, pro forma.
In a new ground of rejection, we reject claims 1-8 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 112, second paragraph, as being indefinite.
This decision contains a new ground of rejection pursuant to 37
C.F.R. § 41.50(b) (2009). 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) provides “[a] new ground of
rejection pursuant to this paragraph shall not be considered final for judicial
review.”
37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) also provides that the appellant, WITHIN TWO
MONTHS FROM THE DATE OF THE DECISION, must exercise one of
the following two options with respect to the new ground of rejection to
avoid termination of the appeal as to the rejected claims:
(1) Reopen prosecution. Submit an appropriate amendment of
the claims so rejected or new evidence relating to the claims so
rejected, or both, and have the matter reconsidered by the examiner, in
which event the proceeding will be remanded to the examiner. . . .

(2) Request rehearing. Request that the proceeding be reheard
under § 41.52 by the Board upon the same record. . . .
Appeal 2009-004042
Application 10/552,076

8

No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.50(f).

REVERSED -- 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b)

msc

PHILIPS INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY & STANDARDS
P.O. BOX 3001
BRIARCLIFF MANOR NY 10510