Appeal No. 97-0609
Application 08/480,106
appears that the examiner has not set forth a prima facie case of
obviousness of the subject matter of independent claims 1 and 5
on appeal in light of the teachings and suggestions of Missios,
the sole reference relied upon.
Our detailed study of this reference also leads us to
conclude our agreement with appellants’ basic position generally
expressed at pages 14 and 15 of the principal Brief on appeal
that such above noted feature set forth in both claims on appeal
is not taught or suggested in the reference relied upon by the
examiner. The operation of the sequence of blocks greater than
block D3 in Fig. 1 of Missios does not appear to us to fuction in
the manner required by the noted portion of claims 1 and 5 on
appeal, since when a no error condition is obtained according to
the flow diagram in Fig. 1, the sequencing of instructions does
not next continue to occur at the instruction cycle time rate at
which the retry was determined to be successful.
Turning lastly to the subject matter of independent claim 11
on appeal, again, we note that the statement of the rejection
beginning at page 3 of the answer does not detail the particulars
of this claim, the pertinent portion of which relates to the
determination of an error being done by iteratively increasing an
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007