Appeal No. 96-1621
Application No. 08/194,899
Turning now to claim 41, this claim (and arguments for
and against) is similar to claim 22. Thus, for the reasons,
supra, with regard to claim 22, we will also sustain the
rejection of claim 41 under 35 U.S.C. 103.
Finally, we turn to the rejection of claims 25 and 27
through 34 under 35 U.S.C. 103.
Independent claim 25 recites, inter alia, that “the first
instruction and the following third instruction are stored as
a double word in the instruction cache....” While Blaner
appears to disclose the storage of adjacent instructions (an
instruction either with its preceding or following
instruction) as a double word, we find nothing in Blaner or
Minagawa which would disclose or suggest the storage of non-
sequential instructions, as the first and third instructions
claimed, as a double word in an instruction cache.
Accordingly, we will not sustain the rejection of
independent claim 25, or of the claims depending therefrom
(27-34) under 35 U.S.C. 103.
CONCLUSION
11
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007