Appeal No. 1997-2161
Application 08/172,170
claim which is of such breadth that it reads on subject matter
disclosed in the prior art is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102
rather than under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph. See In
re Hyatt, 708 F.2d 712, 715, 218 USPQ 195, 197 (Fed. Cir.
1983) citing In re Borkowski, 422 F.2d 904, 909, 164 USPQ 642,
645-46 (CCPA 1970).
On page 4 of the Examiner's answer, the Examiner
argues that the size and location of the physical registers is
unclear. The Examiner further argues that claims 3 and 4 are
essentially duplicate claims because claim 3 appears to be a
push and pop stack in a normal mode and circular queue in the
queue accessing mode.
Appellants argue on page 12 of the brief that the
location of the physical registers are within the data regis-
ter
group of the data processor as claimed and illustrated in the
drawings. Appellants also argue that the size of the physical
registers are not relevant to Appellants' invention. Appel-
lants point out that their invention is not concerned with the
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007