Appeal No. 96-1621
Application No. 08/194,899
instructions and the steering of other instructions to first
or second ALUs. We agree with the examiner that it would have
been within the skill of the artisan to choose different
numbers of predecoded bits to assign to each steering
instruction as appellants have not shown that any particular
number, viz., six, has any particular advantage over any other
number.
In the fourth reply brief, appellants take issue with the
examiner’s contention, arguing that “the predecode bits,
stored with only two instructions, indicate bundling and
steering information for three instructions” [fourth reply
brief - page 5]. We understand appellants’ argument and we
can agree that this appears to be a distinction over what is
disclosed by the applied references. However, as discussed
supra, with regard to claim 19, the claims do not recite
language as limiting as appellants’ argument would indicate.
The claims do not recite that the predecode bits are stored
with only two instructions while indicating bundling and
steering information for three instructions. Moreover, with
regard to claim 22, appellants’ argument is not relevant to
the claim language or to the examiner’s rejection. This claim
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007