Appeal No. 96-1621
Application No. 08/194,899
At the outset, we note that claims 31 through 34
improperly depend from a cancelled claim 26. We will leave it
to appellants and the examiner to amend the claims for correct
dependency at such time as this application may be ready for
issue. However, for our purposes, we will presume that claims
31 and 32 depend from independent claim 25 since that appears
to be what was intended by the amendment of February 21, 1995
(Paper No. 6) wherein claim 26 was canceled and claims 27 and
29 were made dependent on claim 25.
After a thorough review of the record including, inter
alia, the examiner’s reasoning and appellants’ arguments
thereagainst, we will sustain the rejection of claims 19, 20,
22 through 24 and 35 through 42 under 35 U.S.C. 103 but we
will not sustain the rejection of claims 25 and 27 through 34
under 35 U.S.C. 103.
With regard to the first group of claims 19, 20 and 23,
appellants argue that neither Blaner nor Minagawa discloses
the predecoding of three instructions to generate a set of
predecode bits which is stored with only two of the
instructions. While we recognize the differences between the
instant disclosed invention and that taught by Blaner in that
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007