Appeal No. 96-2446
Application 08/246,179
respective positions articulated by the appellants and the Examiner. Upon evaluation of all
the evidence before us, it is our conclusion that the evidence adduced by the examiner is
not sufficient to establish a prima facie case of obviousness with respect to claim 1.
Accordingly, we will not sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Claim 10 contains similar limitations to claim 1 with respect to "a plurality of flag
storage units each storing flag groups to be changed based on different bit widths in an
operation result" and "changing said flag groups based on a data width of a calculating
operation result produced by said calculator" and "selecting a selected flag group
corresponding to a data width designated by a decoded branch instruction."
Claim 12 contains limitations similar to claim 1 with respect to "a calculator . . . to
produce calculator results along with a plurality of flag groups" and "flag selecting means
for selecting an appropriate flag group in accordance an indication of data bit width in an
conditional branch instruction decoded by the instruction decoding unit."
Claim 12 further recites the limitation "simultaneously storing the plurality of flag groups."
Since all the limitations of independent claims 1, 10 and 12 are not taught or
suggested by the applied prior art, we cannot sustain the Examiner's rejection of appealed
claims 2-9 and 11 which depend therefrom, under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
CONCLUSION
To summarize, the decision of the Examiner rejecting claims 1-12 under 35 U.S.C.
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007