Appeal No. 97-0609
Application 08/480,106
instruction processing cycle time and then retrying at least one
operation.
The responsive arguments portion of the answer beginning at
the bottom of page 8 does attempt to assert the obviousness of
this detailed portion of independent claim 11 on appeal.
Although we understand Missios as teaching repetitively and
iteratively sequencing the flow of blocks in Fig. 1 of this
reference, the iterations are not done in the recited manner in
independent claim 11 on appeal. Also, extending respective clock
periods in a sequential or iterative manner for testing purposes
is not the same as iteratively increasing an instruction
processing cycle time and retrying at least one previously
recited operation as set forth in claim 11 on appeal. Thus, we
are in general agreement with appellants’ assertion at page 15 of
the principal Brief on appeal as to this claim.
In view of the foregoing, we have reversed the rejection of
respective independent claims 1, 5 and 11 on appeal,
necessitating in turn the reversal of their respective dependent
claims. Accordingly, the decision of the examiner is reversed.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007