Appeal No. 96-0576
Application 07/846,231
(a) decoding a first part of an instruction from the
instruction set;
(b) determining if said instruction requires at least
one of a READ and a WRITE operation;
(c)sending a request to both the MCU and the IOU to
enter the READ/WRITE state if it is determined in
step b that a READ and/or a WRITE is required;
(d) decoding the remainder of the instruction to
determine the address(es) to be accessed by the READ
and/or WRITE operation;
(e) decoding the address(es) to be accessed, the
decoding performed by at least one of the MCU and the
IOU to determine whether the access is directed
toward memory or I/O devices; and
(f) cancelling one of said requests to the MCU and IOU
based on the results of said decoding step (e).
The Examiner relies on the following references:
Stinson et al. (Stinson) 4,757,439 July 12, 1988
Claims 1 through 9 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over Stinson.
Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellants and the
Examiner, reference is made to the briefs and answer for the 2
2Appellants filed an appeal brief on January 27, 1995. We
will refer to this appeal brief as simply the brief. Appellants
filed a reply appeal brief on July 10, 1995. We will refer to
this reply appeal brief as the reply brief. The Examiner
responded to the reply brief with a letter, mailed August 16,
1995, stating that the reply brief has been entered and
considered but no further response by the Examiner is deemed
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007