Appeal No. 1997-2161
Application 08/172,170
size of the registers but is concerned with providing an
expanded number of registers larger than can be normally
designated by a logical register number in the register speci-
fier field of an instruction.
Turning to Appellants' specification, we note that
Appellants disclose in figure 1 the construction of the data
processor, including physical registers, as recited in Appel-
lants' claims. Furthermore, we note that claims 3 and 4 are
not duplicate claims because they recite numerous features
that are different from each other. Therefore, we find
that claims 3, 4 and 11 through 13 clearly describe the sub-
ject matter of Appellants' invention so as to enable those of
ordinary skill in the art to understand the metes and bounds
of the claims.
Claim 1 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102 as
being anticipated by Sakuma. On page 5 of the Examiner's
answer, the Examiner argues that Sakuma discloses a data
processing system in figure 9 containing an instruction regis-
ter, element 202, which
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007