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 3Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 NextLast modified: November 3, 2007