Appeal No. 96-1439
Application 08/338,976
system in Fig. 2. This analogizes to a sequence of
programming operations by program instruction sequencing,
which is further buttressed by the statement at col. 4,
beginning at line 36 relating to the operation of a program
counter utilized to control the sequencing of “operations so
as to provide a desired program flow.” Column 4, lines 43 and
44.
Notwithstanding appellants’ and the examiner’s respective
positions in the briefs and answer, it appears to us that the
claimed first means corresponds to the operations performed at
step D3 in Fig. 1 while the operations performed in claim 1's
second means corresponds to the function in program flow
position D6. This first recitation of a retry operation in
claim 1 does not require it to be performed at the same or a
different (higher or lower) clock cycle time. Continuing, the
claimed third means also relates to the node exiting the D6
program flow block in Fig. 1 while the claimed fourth means
relates to the operations performed at labeled block D9. The
“varying” instruction processing cycle time of the claim does
not indicate whether it is increased or decreased. The
discussion at col. 2 of Missios indicates that the same
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007