Ex Parte Worley

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Mar 25, 2010

10427482 (B.P.A.I. Mar. 25, 2010)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte CHRISTOPHER S. WORLEY
____________

Appeal 2009-005103
Application 10/427,482
Technology Center 2100
____________

Decided: March 25, 2010
____________

Before JOSEPH L. DIXON, HOWARD B. BLANKENSHIP, and
JAY P. LUCAS, 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 1-13, which are all the claims remaining in the
application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
Appeal 2009-005103
Application 10/427,482

2

Invention
The architecture of a particular processor includes 1-bit predicate
registers 306 (Fig. 3), consisting of 16 static registers (p0 - p15) and 48
rotating registers. Spec. 6:19-7:6; Fig. 3, element 306. According to
Appellant, register p16 is architecturally intended to serve as the “control-
predicate” register that controls the epilog phase of software-pipelined loop
execution. In Appellant’s method, a predicate register other than control-
predicate register p16 can be arbitrarily selected from among the rotating
registers as the control register for the software-pipelined loop. Id. at 14:12-
15:24; Fig. 9, register p20.

Representative Claim
1. A method for constructing an enhanced modulo-
scheduled loop, the method comprising:
selecting a control-predicate register other than a predicate
register architecturally designated as a control-predicate register for
control of software-pipelined modulo-scheduled loops; and
constructing a loop body for the enhanced modulo-scheduled
loop using the selected control-predicate register to control the
enhanced modulo-scheduled loop.

Prior Art
Wang 2002/0144098 A1 Oct. 3, 2002
Muthukumar 2004/0015934 A1 Jan. 22, 2004
Appeal 2009-005103
Application 10/427,482

3
Examiner’s Rejections
Claims 1-5 and 7-13 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being
anticipated by Wang.
Claim 6 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Wang and Muthukumar.

Claim Groupings
Based on Appellant’s arguments in the Appeal Brief, we will decide
the appeal on the basis of claims 1 and 9. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii).

FINDINGS OF FACT
Wang describes a software pipelined assembly language version (Fig.
2B) using an exemplary processor instruction set. The first four instructions
outside the loop body are used to set up loop counter and epilog registers
and to initialize the predicate registers used to stage the software pipeline.
Within the loop body, each of rotating predicate registers p16, p17, and p18
is used to control one particular stage of the software pipeline. ¶ [0041]

PRINCIPLES OF LAW
Claim Interpretation
The claims measure the invention. See SRI Int’l v. Matsushita Elec.
Corp., 775 F.2d 1107, 1121 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (en banc). During prosecution
before the USPTO, claims are to be given their broadest reasonable
interpretation, and the scope of a claim cannot be narrowed by reading
disclosed limitations into the claim. See In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054
(Fed. Cir. 1997); In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319, 321 (Fed. Cir. 1989); In re
Appeal 2009-005103
Application 10/427,482

4
Prater, 415 F.2d 1393, 1404-05 (CCPA 1969). Our reviewing court has
repeatedly warned against confining the claims to specific embodiments
described in the specification. Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1323
(Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc).
“Giving claims their broadest reasonable construction ‘serves the
public interest by reducing the possibility that claims, finally allowed, will
be given broader scope than is justified.’” In re Amer. Acad. of Sci. Tech
Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (quoting In re Yamamoto, 740
F.2d 1569, 1571 (Fed. Cir. 1984)). “An essential purpose of patent
examination is to fashion claims that are precise, clear, correct, and
unambiguous. Only in this way can uncertainties of claim scope be
removed, as much as possible, during the administrative process.” Zletz, 893
F.2d at 322. “Construing claims broadly during prosecution is not unfair to
the applicant . . . because the applicant has the opportunity to amend the
claims to obtain more precise claim coverage.” American Academy, 367
F.3d at 1364.

Anticipation
“Anticipation requires the presence in a single prior art reference
disclosure of each and every element of the claimed invention, arranged as
in the claim.” Lindemann Maschinenfabrik GMBH v. American Hoist &
Derrick Co., 730 F.2d 1452, 1458 (Fed. Cir. 1984).

Appeal 2009-005103
Application 10/427,482

5
ANALYSIS
The Examiner finds that Wang’s description of using registers p16,
p17, and p18 in the software loop, which we addressed in the Finding of
Facts section above, anticipates Appellant’s claim 1.
Appellant admits that Wang describes the same “architecturally
designated” control-predicate register p16 as described in the Specification.
App. Br. 7 and 12. Appellant admits that software-pipelined loops, as
described by Wang, are also known as “modulo-scheduled” loops. Id. at 7-
8.
Appellant admits that each of predicate-control registers p16 through
p18 controls execution of one instruction within the loop body as described
by Wang. Reply Br. 10.1
The law of anticipation does not require that a reference “teach” what
an applicant’s disclosure teaches. Assuming that a reference is properly
“prior art,” it is only necessary that the claims “read on” something disclosed
in the reference, i.e., all limitations of the claim are found in the reference, or
“fully met” by it. Kalman v. Kimberly-Clark Corp., 713 F.2d 760, 772 (Fed.
Cir. 1983).
Instant claim 1 does not preclude selecting register p16 for control of
software-pipelined modulo-scheduled loops. The claim recites selecting a
control predicate-register other than a predicate register architecturally
designated as a control predicate register (e.g., predicate-control register p17
or predicate-control register p18) for control of software-pipelined modulo-

1 However, we see no basis for Appellant’s allegation (id.) that the Examiner
reads the “control-predicate register” of claim 1 on the combination of the
three predicate registers in Wang.
Appeal 2009-005103
Application 10/427,482

6
scheduled loops. Using either of register p17 or register p18 for control of
one particular stage of the software pipeline, as disclosed by Wang and
acknowledged by Appellant, is sufficient to meet the “selecting” step: i.e.,
“selecting [p17 or p18] for control of software-pipelined modulo-scheduled
loops.”
Claim 9 recites constructing the loop body of a modulo-scheduled
loop to include two or more execution streams, and controlling each
execution stream with a distinct predicate register. The Examiner finds that
the different stages of the software pipeline as described by Wang
correspond to the “two or more execution streams” (Ans. 6), each of which
is controlled by a distinct predicate register.
Although the Examiner’s position in the Answer with respect to claim
9 in view of Wang appears to differ from that set forth in the Final
Rejection, Appellant had the opportunity and right to file a reply brief to
show why the Examiner’s findings in the Answer might be deemed
erroneous. However, we find nothing in the Reply Brief (or the Appeal
Brief) that contests or calls into question the Examiner’s reading of the claim
9 “execution streams” on the software pipeline stages described by Wang.
We are therefore not persuaded of error in the claim 9 finding of
anticipation.
We thus sustain the § 102(e) rejection of claims 1-5 and 7-13 over
Wang. Because Appellant relies on the alleged deficiencies of Wang as
applied against base claim 1 as a complete response to the § 103(a) rejection,
we also sustain the rejection of claim 6 over Wang and Muthukumar.

Appeal 2009-005103
Application 10/427,482

7
DECISION
The rejection of claims 1-5 and 7-13 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as
being anticipated by Wang is affirmed.
The rejection of claim 6 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Wang and Muthukumar is affirmed.
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).

AFFIRMED

msc

HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY
Intellectual Property Administration
3404 E. Harmony Road
Mail Stop 35
FORT COLLINS CO 80528