Appeal No. 1998-0049
Application 08/289,028
rejection of claims 61, 62, 65-70, and 89, albeit on
different reasoning.
Claims 63, 72, 74-76, 81, and 90-93
Dependent claim 63 additionally recites "status bits
corresponding to said mask bits to determine the way in
which a status condition selected by each of said mask bits
is interpreted." Independent claims 74 and 81 contain
similar limitations. The Examiner's rejection does not
address these limitations. Vandierendonck does not disclose
or suggest status bits which are used in conjunction with
the mask bits. The Examiner has failed to establish a prima
facie case of obviousness. Therefore, the rejection of
claims 63, 72, 74-76, 81, and 90-93 is reversed.
Claim 88
Claim 88 recites a program counter and entering a
branch address into the program counter in response to the
branch instruction when the particular set of status
conditions selected by the mask bits are present.
Appellants argue that Vandierendonck's "mask" field has
nothing to do with selecting a set of status conditions to
- 11 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007