Appeal No. 96-1620
Application No. 07/938,288
With regard to claims 9 through 26, the examiner brings
in Kurihara for the teaching of a CPUID instruction and
combines this with Durst “because the reading of the CPUID
of Kurihara would allow Durst to access microprocessor ID
data from a memory” [answer, page 7].
Independent claim 9 includes the same requirement of
claim 1 discussed supra, i.e. “a microprocessor ID memory
element for storing microprocessor ID data including data
fields that identify the microprocessor type,” and Kurihara
fails to provide for this deficiency of Durst. Insofar as
the CPUID instruction is concerned, while Kurihara does
describe such an instruction, as pointed out by appellants
[reply brief, page 12], the CPUID of Kurihara is used to
distinguish between other processors on a network. It does
not identify a particular processor as does the instant
claimed invention.
Turning now to independent claims 15 and 22, the
examiner points to various portions of Durst [answer, pages
7-8] which the examiner contends correspond to the claimed
method and then, recognizing that Durst fails to show the
execution of a microprocessor ID instruction, the examiner
relies on Kurihara [column 16, lines 6-11] for the teaching
of a programming step for reading CPUID data from a memory
unit.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007