Appeal No. 2000-1356
Application 07/979,772
obviousness rejection of claim 45 over Lee.
Regarding claim 46, Appellants offer a mere conclusory
statement. Anyway, we find that the branch instruction in Lee
could obviously involve the resolution of a conflict regarding
the use of the same shifter while different kinds of branch
instructions are being processed. Therefore, we sustain the
obviousness rejection of claim 46 over Lee.
Regarding claim 47, Appellants offer no specific analysis
other than a mere conclusory statement. At any rate, we find
that when a decision is made such as the one shown by step H2
in fig. 6 of Lee, an artisan would have employed a single bit
as a flag to denote the result of the decision. Consequently,
we sustain the obviousness rejection of claim 47 over Lee.
With respect to dependent claim 181, an artisan would
have found it obvious to introduce additional arithmetic logic
units to Lee’s processor to facilitate the processing of
instructions. Therefore, we sustain the obviousness rejection
of claim 181 over Lee.
Claim 48
Appellants argue [brief, page 18] that “[a]s shown above,
-8-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007