Appeal No. 96-1772
Application No. 08/180,648
Appellants do not argue these claimed limitations.
Rather, they argue that the applied references do not suggest
clause (e) of claim 8 or clause (f) of claim 12. These
clauses are directed to comparing the count with the
predetermined value and determining, when the count equals the
value, an address for an instruction to be executed (claim 8)
immediately following the last of the plurality of
instructions (claim 12).
While the examiner relies on Fremont to supply such a
teaching, it is our view that Fremont is merely cumulative to
what is already clearly suggested by Mary.
Mary recites that a sequence of loop instructions “...has
to be executed N times before continuing to the next
instruction...” [column 2, lines 36-37]. Accordingly, it is
inherent that, while a comparator is not specifically shown by
Mary, a comparison must be made between the predetermined
value N and the current count in order to determine that the
loop of instructions has, in fact, been executed N times.
Then, at the time that the comparison indicates that the loop
of instructions has been executed N times, execution is
continued to the next instruction. Inherently, then, the
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007