Appeal 2007-2467
Application 09/750,150
History Pattern Field of the VHT and a “Predicted Data Value” is output
from a 2:1 MUX, the input of which is received from the Data Values fields
of the VHT via a 4:MUX and “+” component. (Id. at 288, Figure 6).
We agree with the Examiner that Wang discloses a “hit” in the PHT.
During operation of the Wang system, the VHT receives an instruction
corresponding to a value in the Data Values field and Value History Pattern
field of the VHT. The Value History Pattern field value is used to select a
corresponding counter value in the PHT. (Id. at 285, col. 2). Appellants
assert that a “hit” in the second table is “a determination of whether a match
occurs in a table (or the like).” (Reply Br. 6). In the Wang system, a match
is identified between a value from the Value History Pattern field of the
VHT and a corresponding value in the PHT.
However, we are unpersuaded that the PHT provides a “prediction
value” as recited in claim 1. Rather, the PHT of Wang provides a counter
value to the VHT while the prediction value is provided by the VHT (i.e.,
the “first table” that receives “an instruction”). The absence of the second
table (i.e., PHT) providing the prediction value negates anticipation.
Therefore, we reverse the rejection of claim 1.
III. CLAIMS 13-26
As set forth above, Appellants argue claims 13-26, which are subject
to the same ground of rejection, as a group and asserts claims 13-26 contain
“substantively similar limitations” as claim 1. (App. Br. 10). We select
claim 13 as the sole claim on which to decide the appeal of this group.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013