Ex Parte Wilson

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jan 15, 2004

09246490 (B.P.A.I. Jan. 15, 2004)

1
The opinion in support of the decision being entered today
was not written for publication and is not binding precedent
of the Board.
Paper No. 14
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
__________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
__________
Ex parte KENNETH MARK WILSON
__________
Appeal No. 2002-1833
Application 09/246,490
__________
ON BRIEF
__________
Before THOMAS, HAIRSTON, and LEVY, Administrative Patent Judges.
HAIRSTON, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is an appeal from the final rejection of claims 1
through 20.
The disclosed invention relates to a computer architecture
in which a sub-page support structure is operatively associated
with a processor and a plurality of memories.
Appeal No. 2002-1833
Application No. 09/246,490
2
Claim 1 is illustrative of the claimed invention, and it
reads as follows:
1. A computer architecture comprising:
a first and a second memory;
a processor operatively connected to access said first and
said second memory;
said first and second memory capable of having portions of
sub-pages migrated and replicated therebetween;
a sub-page support structure operatively associated with
said processor and said memories;
said sub-page support structure including a mechanism
responsive to said processor access to said second memory for a
predetermined portion of a sub-page to determine if said
processor access to said second memory can be satisfied by a
processor access to said first memory for said predetermined
portions of said sub-page migrated or replicated thereto from
said second memory; and
a local access mechanism for performing a processor access
to said first memory when said first memory contains said
predetermined portion of said sub-page.
The reference relied on by the examiner is:
Frank et al. (Frank) 5,297,265 Mar. 22, 1994
Claims 1 through 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)
as being anticipated by Frank.
Reference is made to the briefs (paper numbers 9 and 11) and
the answer (paper number 10) for the respective positions of the
appellant and the examiner.
Appeal No. 2002-1833
Application No. 09/246,490
3
OPINION
We have carefully considered the entire record before us,
and we will reverse the anticipation rejection of claims 1
through 18, and sustain the anticipation rejection of claims 19
and 20.
Appellant argues (brief, page 3) that Frank does not
disclose the limitation of
said sub-page support structure including a mechanism
responsive to said processor access to said second
memory for a predetermined portion of a sub-page to
determine if said processor access to said second
memory can be satisfied by a processor access to said
first memory for said predetermined portions of said
sub-page migrated or replicated thereto from said
second memory . . . .
set forth in claims 1, 8 and 19.
With respect to claims 1 through 18, we agree with
appellant’s argument. Frank discloses that a processor request
is handled locally before the request is passed via the memory
management unit to another processing cell (Figures 2A and 4;
column 3, line 64 through column 4, line 8; column 7, line 62
through column 8, line 7). It follows that Frank cannot make a
determination whether a processor access to a second/remote
memory for a predetermined portion of a sub-page can be satisfied
by a processor access to a first/local memory. Thus, the
Appeal No. 2002-1833
Application No. 09/246,490
4
anticipation rejection of claims 1 through 18 is reversed because
Frank does not disclose every limitation found in these claims.
Glaxo Inc. v. Novopharm Ltd., 52 F.3d 1043, 1047, 34 USPQ2d 1565,
1567 (Fed. Cir.), cert. denied, 516 U.S. 3378 (1995).
Turning to claim 19, we find that none of appellant’s
arguments apply to this claim. Unlike claims 1 through 18, this
claim, like Frank, satisfies processor requests locally before
making a remote request. In summary, the anticipation rejection
of claims 19 and 20 is sustained.
DECISION
The decision of the examiner rejecting claims 1 through 20
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) is affirmed as to claims 19 and 20, and
is reversed as to claims 1 through 18.
Appeal No. 2002-1833
Application No. 09/246,490
5
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
JAMES D. THOMAS )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
KENNETH W. HAIRSTON ) APPEALS AND
Administrative Patent Judge ) INTERFERENCES
)
)
)
STUART S. LEVY )
Administrative Patent Judge )
KWH:svt
Appeal No. 2002-1833
Application No. 09/246,490
6
HEWLETT PACKARD COMPANY
P.O. Box 272400
3404 East Harmony Road
Intellectual Property Administration
Fort Collins, CO 80527-2400