Appeal No. 95-1123
Application 08/028,757
Inagami’s teaching of storing the number of uncompleted
instructions to Acosta.
Appellants also argue that Inagami’s window does not
contain issued and non-issued instructions. This argument
finds no basis in claim 1. However, claims 2-7 require the
means for handling an interrupt to detect the number of
instructions unissued at the time of interrupt. Inagami
contains no relevant teaching regarding unissued instructions.
Rather, Inagami addresses instructions that are issued but
whose execution is not yet complete.
Thus, we will sustain the obviousness rejection of
claim 1 but not claims 2-7.
CONCLUSION
The rejections of claims 1-7 under 35 U.S.C. § 112,
first and second paragraphs, are not sustained. The rejection
of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is sustained. The rejection
of claims 2-7 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is not sustained.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in
connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 CFR
§ 1.136(a).
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007