NON-STATUTORY Section 2: Communication System
Communication between computer systems wherein data transfer without
having the central processing unit tied up at all times by the use
of a single sender buffer is acceptable under Section 2. Amendments
submitted after the Final Action.
Final Action - Withdrawn
This decision deals with the Applicant's request for review by the Com-
missioner of Patents of the Final Action on application 364,506 (Class
340-82) filed November 12, 1980, assigned to Fujitsu Limited entitled
INTER-SUBSYSTEM COMMUNICATION SYSTEM. The inventors are T. Tsuchimoto; S.
Kaneda; T. Miyazawa; T. Shimada; H. Suzuki; M. Sanagi and K. Hiraoka. The
Examiner in charge issued a Final Action an June 23, 1983, refusing to
allow the application. A Hearing was held on November b, 1987, at which
Applicant was represented by his Patent Agent, Mr. V. Marston.
This invention relates to a system for establishing communication between a
plurality of computer systems wherein data transfer utilises a data
processing system having sender and receiver subsystems operating under the
control of an independent or common operating system. Figure 4 and amended
figure 10 shown below are illustrative of the application.
(See figure IV)
(See figure X)
The communication system in Figure 4 shows subsystem 1 provides the sending
side and subsystem 2 is the receiver side. When one-way communication for
the reverse direction is provided, a two-way communication path can be
realized between the subsystems. The programs in the sender subsystem
writes the queue element format data into the sending buffer specified by
the enqueue pointer of the sending buffer control block and instructs data
transfer to the communication path by updating said enqueue pointer.
In rejecting the application in view of Section 2 of the Patent Act for not
being directed to statutory subject matter, the Examiner says, in part, as
follows:
Having some parts of a computer memory (or store)
designated as "buffers" merely means that some particu-
lar memory locations of the computer store some parti-
cular data, Which is commonplace in computers; the
determination of which data to store in which memory
location is determined by computer program. This, too,
is commonplace.
The use of "buffer memories" to accommodate incoming-
outgoing data constitutes the obvious use of "buffer
memories" for their intended dictionary-defined pur-
poses, namely, to store incoming or outgoing data.
"Said sender subsystem has a sending buffer address
table having n entries while the receiver subsystem
has a receiving buffer address table" (lines 3-4):-
These "tables" are part of a program, and not physical
entities.
"Each of said entries (BAW) contains a header address
information (BA) of corresponding said sending and
receiving buffers and the length information or the
final address information (BL) of the relevant
buffer" (lines 5-8):-
These "address informations" and "length informations"
are part of a program and not physical apparatus.
. . .
It is held that the purported apparatus of Fig. 10 has
no inherent property or capacity to supply the func-
tions (such as above) of claims 1 etc.
It is further held that the purported apparatus of
Fig. 10 would be capable of supplying those functions
only by virtue of operating under the specific control
of a specific program and not otherwise.
This view is held to be reinforced by the bulk of the
disclosure on pages 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10 which disclose
the claimed results as having been achieved by means of
programming. ...
...It should be noted that every program could be re-
garded as resulting in a different configuration of a
computer memory location and of their interrelation-
ships, and could therefore be argued as resulting in a
new computer-apparatus. Such view that "the apparatus
must be novel because the program is novel" has, how-
ever, not been upheld by jurisprudence. ...
In response to the Final Action, the Applicant submitted amended claims 1
to 13, replaced cancelled pages 1 to 13 of the disclosure with pages 1 to
18 and amended figure 10 as well as requesting permission to add new
figures 11 and 12. The applicant stated (in part):
The present invention is directed to a computer sys-
tem which eliminates the need to issue a start I/O
command to a communication channel in a processing sys-
tem. This elimination of the start I/0 command reduces
significantly the input-output processing overhead in
the main CPU. The communication channel monitors the
contents of enqueue and dequeue pointers to determine
whether data should be sent to the communication chan-
nel of another computer system. When data is available
for transmission, the channel issues a send request
command to the channel of the other communication sys-
tem and then waits on a receive-ok command. When the
receive-ok command is received, the channel retrieves
the data to be sent from main storage and stores it in
local storage after which the channel sends the data in
units of a block to the other subsystem. After the
last block is sent, the channel waits for an end re-
porting command from the channel of the other computer
system, then proceeds to update the dequeue pointer.
After the dequeue pointer is updated, the channel
checks to see if another queuing element is ready for
transmission.
...Although the system operates under program control
and manipulates data, claim 1 is directed to a combina-
tion including hardware elements and does not merely
claim a program or algorithm per se. It is submitted
that in Canada, as in the United States, it is improper
to isolate particular steps of a claim directed to cal-
culations or program steps and then reject the entire
claim as being directed to non-statutory subject
matter. Doing this would fail to take into account the
very real physical meaning of the invention. ...
...No doubt there are numerous Canadian patents having
claims which include steps of calculating, specific
formulae, or steps carried out by a program but, as is
clear from the foregoing, it is the combination as a
whole which determines whether the claim is directed to
statutory subject matter and not individual elements of
the claim. As the claims clearly include physical
steps or apparatus and not merely calculations or the
like, it is submitted that they are directed to statu-
tory subject matter. ...
The issue before the Board is whether or not the subject matter of the
application is patentable in view of Section 2 of the Patent Act. The
amendments submitted in response to the Final Action have been considered.
Claim 1 now reads:
An intercomputer system communication system in a
data processing system comprising first and second sub-
systems each having main storage and each operating
under the control of an operating system; said first
subsystem further comprising a sender subsystem having
n sending buffers in the respective main storage; said
sender subsystem further comprising a sending buffer
address table in the respective main storage having n
entries; said receiver subsystem further comprising a
receiving buffer address table in the respective main
storage having m entries; each of said n and m entries
comprising header address information for corresponding
said n sending and m receiving buffers and length in-
formation for the respective buffer; said sender sub-
system further comprising a sender buffer control data
block in main storage including: a header address for
the sending buffer address table; said n entries in
said sending buffer address table; an enqueue pointer
which indicates which of said n entries is to be en-
queued next; and a dequeue pointer which indicates
which of said a entries is to be dequeued next into the
respective main storage; said receiver subsystem
further comprising a receiver buffer control data block
in main storage including: a header address for the re-
ceiving buffer address table; said m entries in said
receiving address buffer table; an enqueue pointer
which indicates which of said m entries is to be en-
queued next; and a dequeue pointer which indicates
which of said m entries is to be dequeued next into
respective main storage; and said communication system
further comprising a communication unit, operatively
connected between said sender subsystem and said re-
ceiver subsystem, for transferring data stored in said
n sending buffers of the sender subsystem to said m
receiving buffers of the receiver subsystem.
During the Hearing, the Examiner maintained that the claimed features can
only be found in the form of a program and not in the physical entities.
Further, he emphasized that any physical entities mentioned in the claims
are standard components of any computer and when looking at the claimed in-
ventive features, they are not in physical form but only in the form of a
program.
Mr. Marston stated that the applicant's system has arparatus such as stor-
age systems and C.P.U.'s arranged in a manner different from any known
system. He points out that the applicant's system, as explained in the
disclosure, enables the transfer of data without having the C.P.U. tied up
at all times by utilizing data stored in a single sender buffer area, game-
ly the queue element.
In assessing the kind of subject matter presented by Applicant, we are
guided by the decision in Schlumberger Canada Ltd. v. The Commissioner of
Patents (1981) 56 C.P.R. (2d) at 204, and the following passages of Pratte,
J.:
In order to determine whether the application discloses
a patentable invention, it is first necessary to deter-
mine what, according to the application, has been dis-
covered.
and
I am of opinion that the fact a computer is or should
be used to implement discovery does not change the
nature of that discovery. What the appellant claims as
an invention here is merely the discovery that by
making certain calculations according to certain
formulae, useful information could be extracted from
certain measurements. This is not, in my view, an
invention within the meaning of Section 2.
It is clear that the applicant shows a communication system operation be-
tween computer systems wherein data transfer processing utilizes sender and
receiver subsystems operating under the control of an independent or common
operating system. The sender subsystem has the sending buffer address
table having n entries while the receiver subsystem of the receiving buffer
address table having m entries on their respective main stores. Further
the sender system has a buffer control block wherein an enqueue pointer in-
dicates a buffer address stored in the table to be enqueued and a dequeue
pointer to indicate a buffer address being stored in the table to be de-
queued next on the register of the relevant sender subsystem. We note that
the applicant uses a dedicated arrangement between sender subsystems and
receiver subsystems for a one-to-one relationship instead of the conven-
tional inter- channel connection system utilizing communication between
multiprocessors as conventionally used. We are satisfied in view of
Schlumberger, supra, that the application presents patentable subject
matter under Section 2 of the Act.
Looking at the amended claims, we see that they are directed to an inter-
computer system communication system and, in our opinion, they are directed
to the invention described in the application.
We find, therefore, that the application discloses a communication system
that pertains to more than merely performing calculation steps to derive
particular measurements. In the absence of any cited art, we are satisfied
that the application is directed to patentable subject matter and may be
allowable.
We recommend the withdrawal of the rejection of the application for being
directed to non-statutory subject matter.
M.G. Brown S.D. Kot
Acting Chairman Member
Patent Appeal Board
I have reviewed the prosecution of the application. I concur with the
findings and recommendations of the Patent Appeal Board. Accordingly, I
withdraw the Final Action, and I am remanding the application to the Exami-
ner for prosecution consistent with the recommendation.
J.H.A. Gari‚py
Commissioner of Patents
Dated at Hull, Quebec
this 17 day of February 1988
Fetherstonhaugh & Co.
Box 2999. Station D
Ottawa, Ontario
K1P 5Y6