Ex Parte Gschwind et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardMay 22, 201411416421 (P.T.A.B. May. 22, 2014) Copy Citation 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. 11/416,421 05/02/2006 Michael Gschwind YOR920060005US1 (163-118) 5719 49267 7590 05/23/2014 TUTUNJIAN & BITETTO, P.C. 425 Broadhollow Road, Suite 302 Melville, NY 11747 EXAMINER HUISMAN, DAVID J ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2183 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 05/23/2014 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 MICHAEL GSCHWIND and BALARAM SINHAROY ____________ Appeal 2011-005784 Application 11/416,421 Technology Center 2100 ____________ Before ELENI MANTIS MERCADER, DANIEL N. FISHMAN, and CATHERINE SHIANG, Administrative Patent Judges. SHIANG, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s final rejection of claims 1-4, 8-12, and 14-20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We reverse. Appeal 2011-005784 Application 11/416,421 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE The Anticipation Rejection We have reviewed Appellants’ arguments in the Brief, the Examiner’s rejection, and the Examiner’s response to Appellants’ arguments. We concur with Appellants’ conclusion (App. Br. 12-15) that the Examiner erred in finding Ohkami (U.S. 5,600,810) teaches “an instruction execution unit configured to execute the single, executable internal instruction on a hardware wide datapath,” as recited in independent claim 1. The Specification states “wide data refers to data having a size longer than an architectural width of data. The architectural width is the size of data that the system architecture was designed for. A wide datapath is a datapath that accommodates wide data.” Spec. [0031]. The Examiner has not shown Ohkami teaches an instruction execution unit configured to execute the single, executable internal instruction on a hardware wide datapath, in light of the Specification’s definition of wide data and wide datapath. We also concur with Appellants’ conclusion (App. Br. 16-18) that the Examiner erred in finding Campbell (U.S. 7,418,580 B1) teaches “an instruction execution unit configured to execute the single, executable internal instruction on a hardware wide datapath,” as recited in independent claim 1. Similar to the reasons discussed above, the Examiner has not shown Campbell teaches an instruction execution unit configured to execute the single, executable internal instruction on a hardware wide datapath, in light of the Specification’s definition of wide data and wide datapath. Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of independent claim 1, and corresponding dependent claims under 35 U.S.C. § 102. Appeal 2011-005784 Application 11/416,421 3 For similar reasons discussed above, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of independent claims 11 and 15, and corresponding dependent claims under 35 U.S.C. § 102. THE OBVIOUSNESS REJECTION We also do not sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of dependent claims 4 and 12, and claims 10 and 18.1 The Examiner cites Official Notice and knowledge of one skilled in the art for those claims. Because the Examiner does not rely on Official Notice and knowledge of one skilled in the art for the disputed claim limitation, Official Notice and knowledge of one skilled in the art do not remedy the deficiencies discussed above regarding claims 1, 11, and 15, which claims 4 and 12, and claims 10 and 18 depend from. DECISION The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-4, 8-12, and 14-20 is reversed. REVERSED pgc 1 Appellants raise additional arguments. Because the identified issue is dispositive of the appeal, we do not reach the additional arguments. Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation