Appeal No. 96-1588
Application 08/036,947
instructions, to the extent claimed" (Answer at 3, para. 11).
We agree with appellant that the examiner's position ignores the
fact that terms "squeezed" and "non-squeezed" are defined in
paragraph c of the claim and at page 4 of the specification in a
way that clearly distinguishes them from the dependent/
independent concept and that the claim must be construed in
accordance with those definitions. See In re Morris, 127 F.3d
1048, 1054, 44 USPQ2d 1023, 1027 (Fed. Cir. 1997):
[T]he PTO applies to the verbiage of the proposed claims the
broadest reasonable meaning of the words in their ordinary
usage as they would be understood by one of ordinary skill
in the art, taking into account whatever enlightenment by
way of definitions or otherwise that may be afforded by the
written description contained in the applicant's
specification.
Nothing in Rasbold suggests selecting instructions based on the
claimed squeezed/non-squeezed distinction. The DAG diagram in
Rasbold's Figure 2 and the associated "cost" for each instruction
node clearly concern dependence versus independence. Rasbold's
teaching of avoiding interlocks caused by the assignment of
machine resources (col. 11, lines 42-48) corresponds to
appellant's step of selecting instructions without violating
"resource constraints" (claim para. d); it is not a squeezed/non-
squeezed distinction. Nor is Rasbold's calculation of the
Desired Issue Time (DIT) for each instruction.
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007