Appeal No. 96-2446
Application 08/246,179
claims 1-12 are properly rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 and we will not sustain the
rejection of claims 1-12.
Turning to the rejection of claims 1-12, appellants argue "cited prior art teaches the
coding of data width only in arithmetic instructions. Certainly the Examiner has been
unable to cite any art disclosing data width being coded in conditional branch instructions
or of data width decisions being deferred to the conditional branch decision." (See brief at
page 9, paragraph 1.) We agree. Woods discloses that the flag data is available, but
does not disclose that the flag data is stored in the manner as recited in claim language.
The language of claim 1 requires "a plurality of flag storage means, each of said plurality
of flag storage means storing flag storage groups, each of said flag groups being
changed based on a different bit width of N-bit data obtained by operation of said
calculator." (Emphasis added.) Woods does not disclose storing a plurality of flag
groups and each flag group being changed based on a different bit width of N-bit data
obtained by operation of said calculator. The claim language further requires "a flag
selecting means for selecting one of said plurality of
flag storage means in accordance with an indication in a conditional branch
instruction decoded by said instruction decoding unit." (Emphasis added.) Woods
discloses the selection of the appropriate flag data by use of control signals CTRL0 and
CTRL1 to control the multiplexers. The flag group is formed therefrom. Moreover, the
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007