Appeal No. 95-4010
Application 08/082,338
a "test operation instruction means" which corresponds to the
Appellants' TSTOP
instruction 108 disclosed in Appellants' specification and an
"instruction execute means" which corresponds to the
Appellants'
instruction execution unit 110 disclosed in Appellants'
specification. Appellants further state that claim 14 recites
a "corresponding potentially undefined target instruction"
which corresponds to instruction INST3 disclosed in
Appellants' specification. Appellants' argue that these
limitations are not taught by any combination of the applied
references. In the reply brief and the second reply brief,
Appellants emphasized that the Examiner fails to identify
where in the prior art these limitations are taught.
The Examiner argues in the answer that Zolnowsky
teaches the disclosed invention as substantially claimed. The
Examiner takes claim 14 as an exemplary claim and argues that
Zolnowsky teaches an instruction testing means in Figures 1-4;
column 2, lines 54-64; column 3, lines 50-63; and columns 5, 6
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007