Appeal No. 96-0576
Application 07/846,231
Appellants argue on pages 9 through 13 of the brief that
Stinson fails to teach or suggest decoding a first part of an
instruction to determine if a READ or a WRITE operation is
required and if such operation is required sending to the system
resources a request to place these resources in a READ/WRITE
state. Appellants further argue that Stinson fails to teach or
suggest that once the remainder of the instruction is decoded,
and it is determined which resource is to be accessed, the
requests to the other resources are canceled. Appellants further
emphasize on pages 3 through 5 of the reply brief that Stinson
fails to teach the above claimed limitations as recited in
Appellants’ claims.
We note that Appellants’ claim 1 recites in part the
following:
(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;
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007