Appeal No. 94-3053
Application 07/832,661
registers in the system microprocessor" (col. 2, lines 59-61)
and
"control[s] and examine[s] the contents of all facilities
within the microprocessor" (col. 4, lines 6-7). Hester
performs this alter/control function by using the desired
instruction “to enable the stop-on-address function" of the
microprocessor. Col. 3, lines 22-37. Thus, the claim
language that Appellants argue for claim 55 is met by Hester.
Accordingly, we will sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim
55 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) in view of Hester.
Aside from the above claim language for claim 55,
Appellants have chosen not to argue any of the other specific
limitations as a basis for patentability. As stated by our
reviewing Court in In re Baxter Travenol Labs., 952 F.2d 388,
391, 21 USPQ2d 1281, 1285 (Fed. Cir. 1991), "[i]t is not the
function of this court to examine the claims in greater detail
than argued by an appellant, looking for nonobvious
distinctions over the prior art." 37 CFR § 1.192(a), as
amended at 58 Fed. Reg. 54510, Oct. 22, 1993, which was
12
Page: Previous 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007