Appeal No. 96-1772
Application No. 08/180,648
address of that next instruction, i.e. instruction JS (Figure
2) in Mary, must have been determined.
Appellants argue nothing of substance with regard to the
instant claimed limitations other than “[n]either of the
references allude [sic, alludes] in the slightest way to
paragraph e. of independent claim 8 and to paragraph f. of
independent claim 12" [brief-page 3]. Since we have shown,
supra, how the references do, in fact, “allude” to these claim
paragraphs, the rejection of claims 8 and 12 under 35 U.S.C.
103 is sustained.
Regarding dependent claims 15 and 16, appellants merely
state that these claims limit claim 12 by reciting that the
predetermined value ranges from zero to the number of
instructions in the plurality and that the value is greater
than zero. First, the mere recitation of claim limitations,
without any indication as to how such limitations distinguish
over the prior art, does not constitute a legitimate
“argument.” In any event, as to the value being greater than
zero, this would have been inherent as it is meaningless to
have zero or a negative number of iterations of loop
instructions. As to the range, this is the same range recited
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007