Appeal No. 96-1621
Application No. 08/194,899
Similar to the argument presented with regard to claim
19, appellants contend that neither Minagawa nor Blaner
discloses the predecoding of three instructions to generate a
set of predecode bits which is stored with only two
instructions. While we would agree with the argument as
setting forth the distinguishing feature of the instant
disclosed invention over what is taught by the applied
references, again, we do not find the instant claim language
to be so limiting. The storage of the generated predecode
bits with only two instructions is not required by claim 35.
Accordingly, we will sustain the rejection of claims 35,
38 through 40 and 42 under 35 U.S.C. 103.
With regard to claim 36 and 37, appellants argue that
neither Blaner nor Minagawa discloses that any predecode bits
indicate whether two consecutive instructions which are to be
bundled for execution are non-aligned or aligned. We
disagree.
We turn to page 9 of the instant specification for
definitions of “non-aligned” and “aligned”:
When aligned instructions are bundled, this means
that the instruction in the even word of the current
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007