Appeal No. 95-2219
Application 08/041,922
Garlock, Inc., 721 F.2d 1540, 1548, 220 USPQ 303, 309 (Fed. Cir.
1983), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 851 (1984).
The Examiner argues on pages 3 and 4 of the answer that
Brown teaches “the invention substantially as claimed.” The
Examiner refers to Appellants’ claim 1 and states the following:
Brown et al. did not specifically detail a second value
at a second addressable storage location determined
from a second address specified by said instruction and
the state of said processor condition code, exactly as
claimed. However, it would have been obvious to one of
ordinary skill in the art, at the time the claimed
invention was made, that any value stored in any
storage location has to be specified by an address in
order to retrieve the value form a processor (i.e., AU)
to operate on the value. As to the second value to be
determined by, including the processor’s condition code
it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in
the art that to differentiate the first value from the
second value for representing pixels or points, one of
the values has to be different and could be specified
by condition code and addresses.
We note that the Examiner has not provided any further evidence
to support his case.
Appellants argue on page 3 of the reply brief that the
Examiner has admitted that Brown does not teach logic for
decoding instructions as recited in Appellants’ claims.
Appellants argue that the Examiner provides no teaching or
support whatsoever in support of his assertion that it would have
been obvious to provide such logic, but instead the Examiner only
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007