Appeal No. 97-0609
Application 08/480,106
Rather than repeat the positions of the appellants and the
examiner, reference is made to the briefs and the answer for the
respective details thereof. 2
OPINION
We reverse the rejection of all claims on appeal under 35
U.S.C. § 103.
Independent claims 1 and 5 on appeal here contain a common
limitation relating to a feature of a means for maintaining
operation of the overall computer system to continue processing
of an instruction and a remainder of a stream of instructions at
an instruction cycle time at which the retry of at least one
earlier recited instruction was successful. Claim 5 recites
essentially the same feature as in claim 1 in slightly different
words.
The statement of the rejection at pages 3 and 4 of the
answer does not detail the particulars of these features in each
of these claims. The same may be said of the positions taken by
the examiner with respect to the responsive arguments portion of
the answer beginning at page 6. On the basis of this alone, it
2The bottom of page 1 of the principal Brief on appeal
indicates that the present application is a continuation of
Application Serial No. 08/338,976 filed on November 14, 1994.
This latter application has been the subject of an earlier appeal
identified as Appeal No. 96-1439.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007