Commissioner's Decision
Computer Related, Sec 2: Detection of Interferences
Claims were rejected in the Final Action for being broad enough
to encompass a general purpose computer. Amended claims contain
additional means which may be acceptable as a sufficient
combination of elements if no art is applied.
Final Action: Amended claims to be considered.
This decision deals with Applicant's request for review by the Commissioner
of Patents of the Final Action on application 284,910 (Class 354-233) filed
August 17, 1977. Assigned to Honeywell Information Systems Inc. it is
entitled APPARATUS FOR THE MULTIPLE DETECTION OF INTERFERENCES. The
inventor is Mario G. Trinchieri. The Examiner in charge issued a Final
Action on July 23, 1980, refusing to allow the claims. Subsequent to the
response to the Final Action, the Applicant submitted a letter of amendment
on August 28, 1987.
The application relates to a data processing system having mechanisms and
methods for providing protection for the system to carry on its activities
with a degree of simultaneity when one or more of the system's resources
may be required by more than one activity at the same time. The mechanisms
and methods further provide for protection against additional
inconveniences, for example, excessive space requirements for temporary
storage of uncleared versions of the resources, interference protection of
processes in a multiprogramming/multiprocessing environment, and secondary
aborts. The application refers to the firmware/hardware implementations of
the arrangement of the protection mechanisms by means of block diagrams in
various drawings and corresponding texts in the disclosure. The protection
mechanism tools include a utilization table per resource, a matrix of
relations for each non cleared process, and affected resources lists for
mechanisms wishing to use the resources. These tools identify the
relationships among the processes in use, and select alternate logical
sequences when common resources are demanded by the processes and
interferences occur in accessing the resources. The known structures shown
by figures 10 to 13 illustrate where the protection mechanism may be
applied. Specific descriptions of hardware embodiments are provided for
the protection arrangements presented in figures 17a, 17b, 20a and 20b. It
may be seen from the description and the several drawings that the
Applicant's arrangements present a combination of interacting components.
All the drawings have been reviewed in assessing the subject matter in the
application, but for brevity none are reproduced.
In the Final Action, the Examiner rejected the claims for being broad
enough to encompass a general purpose computer embodiment referred to in
the disclosure. He refuses them for encompassing non-statutory subject
matter and for relating only to the program that controls the machines. He
further rejects them as follows:
The applicant is required to restrict the claims to
embodiments wherein the novelty lies in the apparatus
itself ...
The Applicant emphasizes in his response to the Final Action that the
machines of the prior art may be used in practicing his invention. He
draws attention to, figure 17a parts 1 and 2, figure 17b parts 1 and 2,
figure 20 parts 1 and 2, and figure 20b parts 1 and 2 for a showing of
hardware incorporated in his computer structure. The Applicant argues, in
part, as follows:
It should be noted that it is the hardware of Figures 17
and 20 which is incorporated into the prior art computer
(shown in part by Figures 9-12) that comprise the
invention. Clearly there is no program involved here.
Clearly everything that is involved is hardware. All of
the claims are either directed to such new and novel
hardware or to the method carried out by such hardware.
For example, claim 1 specifically recites apparatus
comprising a combination of means, i.e. first means for
storing coded signals ... and second means coupled to be
responsive to said first means for identifying processes
whose history of utilization of common information causes
interference with a first predetermined process.
and,
It should be clearly noted that, in this application,
neither the processes nor the programs of the computer are
disclosed or claimed either directly inferentially, nor are
they necessary to practice the invention. Clearly what is
disclosed and claimed is an addition of hardware and logic
circuitry to a prior art computer which forms a new
hardware combination for processing information in a new
and novel way.
The invention pertains to addition of hardware to a prior
art computer to provide a new and unobvious combination
that has new and unobvious results as disclosed and claimed.
The issue before the Board is whether or not the claimed subject matter
is directed to a patentable art area of invention within the meaning of
Section 2 of the Patent Act. Amended claim 1 reads:
In a multiprogramming/multiprocessing computer system for
executing a plurality of processes sharing common
information, an apparatus for identifying first processes of
said plurality of processes which would interfere with a second
process of said processes which is executing on said computer
system when said second process accesses the common
information, said apparatus comprising:
(a) first means for storing first coded signals indicative of
the history of utilization of the common information by any
one of said plurality of processes;
(b) second means for identifying third processes which
sequentially follow said second process for execution
on said computer system;
(c) third means, coupled to said second means, for storing
second coded signals which identify said third processes;
(d) fourth means, coupled to said first and third means, for
comparing said first coded signals with said second coded
signals; and
(e) fifth means, coupled to said fourth means for indicating
which first processes of said third processes would inter-
fere with said second process executing on said computer
system.
In assessing the computer-related subject matter of this application, we
find direction from the comments provided by Pratte, J. in Schlumberger
Canada Ltd. v. The Commissioner of Patents (1981) 56 C.P.R. 204, as
follows:
In order to determine whether the application discoses a
patentable invention, it is first necessary to determine
what, according to the application, has been discovered.
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.
We see in Applicant's amended claims 1 to 14 submitted August 28, 1987, a
combination of apparatus including firmware and hardware. It enables
multiple processes to use common resources by using various means which
interact to identify those processes that would cause interference with a
certain process when information is sought from a common source. We are
persuaded by the application and by Applicant's arguments that the amended
claims are directed to more than making calculations and are related to an
invention within the meaning of Section 2.
In determining what components form the Applicant's combination, we find a
clear discussion of his appreciation of the entities forming the invention
in his response of June 13, 1980, in part, as follows:
... In order to appreciate this, however, it is necessary to
clearly identify such entities as "plurality of processes",
"first processes", "second prazess" and "third processes". The
terms may be better understood by considering the pictorial
description set out in the attached SKETCH A.
"plurality of processes" includes all processes
in the computer system. Example: those in the
area inside the external circle in the figure.
"second process" is a specific process of that
plurality. Example: the dot in the figure.
"third processes" is the subset of said plurality
including all processes "which follow" said
second process. Example: those in the area
inside the intermediate circle in the figure.
"first processes" is the subset of the "third
processes" including those of said third
processes which "would interfere" with said
second process. Example: those in the area
inside the inner circle.
A main purpose of the invention is to identify the "first
processes" corresponding to a given "second process".
According to claims 2 and 3 this identification is
accomplished in two steps, taking advantage of the fact
that the "first processes" are a subset of the "third
processes". First, the "third processes" are identified
(claim 2 refers to this part of the operation), then, the
"first processes" are identified among the "third
processes" (claim 3 encompasses the entire operation).
This is why claim 2, after having mentioned as the main
purpose of the apparatus the identification of the "first
processes", describes means which lead to the
identification of the "third processes", and only when the
"fifth means" of claim 3 are also considered, the "first
processes" are identified.
In view of the description provided by Applicant's specification, and his
arguments of June 13, 1980, we find that the amended claims, by including
the fifth means, may be acceptable as a sufficient definition of the
combination of elements that achieves the main purpose of the invention,
namely the identification of which of a number of processes interferes with
another process in accessing information from a common source.
While it may be that the amended claims 1 to 14 are acceptable under
Section 2 and contain sufficient components to define the invention,
we are aware, and as Applicant notes, no art has been cited. We make no
finding of patentability therefore.
In summary, we recommend that the refusal of the claimed subject matter
under Section 2 be withdrawn, and that the application be returned to the
Examiner for prosecution consistent with the recommendation.
M.G. Brown S.D. Kot
Acting Chairman Member
Patent Appeal Board
I concur with the findings and the recommendation of the Patent Appeal
Board. Accordingly, I withdraw the rejection of the claimed matter under
Section 2 of the Act, and I remand the application in its amended form to
the Examiner for normal prosecution.
J.H.A. Gari‚py
Commissioner of Patents
Dated this 16 day of November 1987
Hull, Quebec.
Smart & Biggar
P.O. Box 2999, Station D
Ottawa, Ontario
K1P 5Y6