Appeal 2007-2467
Application 09/750,150
selected PHT entry” and that “the selected PHT entry is the final prediction
value or the ‘predicted data value’ in Figure 6 of Wang.” (Ans. 14). Also,
the Examiner asserts that Wang discloses a “hit” in the second table (i.e., the
“PHT”). (Ans. 13).
The issue is whether Appellants have shown that the Examiner erred
in rejecting claim 1 as being anticipated by Wang.
ANALYSIS
"[A]nticipation of a claim under § 102 can be found only if the prior
art reference discloses every element of the claim. . . ." In re King, 801 F.2d
1324, 1326, 231 USPQ 136, 138 (Fed. Cir. 1986) (citing Lindemann
Maschinenfabrik GMBH v. American Hoist & Derrick Co., 730 F.2d 1452,
1457, 221 USPQ 481, 485 (Fed. Cir. 1984)). "[A]bsence from the reference
of any claimed element negates anticipation." Kloster Speedsteel AB v.
Crucible, Inc., 793 F.2d 1565, 1571, 230 USPQ 81, 84 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Wang discloses a hybrid predictor containing a Value History Table
(VHT) and a Pattern History Table (PHT). (Wang at 285). The VHT
contains a corresponding Data Values field of the “4 most recent unique
values” corresponding to results for the instruction (Id. at 285, col. 2) and a
Value History Pattern field that “stores as a 2p-bit pattern the last p
outcomes of an instruction.” (Id.).
As mentioned above, the Examiner equates the “second table” of
claim 1 with Wang’s “PHT.” The PHT contains counter values that provide
“a condensed history of the previous outcomes [of instructions].” (Id.).
Also, Wang illustrates that the PHT receives data input from the Value
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013