Appeal No. 1997-0586
Application No. 08/243,559
modification.” In re Fitch, 972 F.2d 1260, 1266 n.14, 23
USPQ2d 1780, 1783-84 n.14 (Fed. Cir. 1992), citing In re
Gordon, 773 F.2d 900, 902,
221 USPQ 1125, 1127 (Fed. Cir. 1984). “Obviousness may not be
established using hindsight or in view of the teachings or
suggestions of the inventor.” Para-Ordnance Mfg. V. SGS
Importers Int’l, 73 F.3d 1087, 37 USPQ 2d at 1239 (Fed. Cir.
1995), citing W. L. Gore & Assocs., v. Garlock, Inc., 721 F.2d
at 1551, 1553, 220 USPQ at 311, 312-13 (Fed. Cir. 1983).
Claims 1 and 14
These claims are rejected over Beckwith and Johnson. The
Examiner recognizes [final rejection, page 2] that “Beckwith
et al. do not teach the branch instruction including an
opcode, a register specifier, and memory address specifier.”
The Examiner contends that Johnson “taught the branch
instruction including a branch prediction target address” [id.
2 and 3]. The Examiner points to the abstract of Johnson for
this teaching. The Examiner then asserts [id. 3] that “it
would have been obvious ... to incorporate the teaching of
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007