Appeal No. 1995-3690 Page 3
Application No. 08/000,342
The appellant's invention relates to a method for
implementing speculative instruction in computing systems. An
understanding of the invention can be derived from a reading
of exemplary claim 1, which appears in the appendix to the
appellant's brief.
The prior art
The prior art of record relied upon by the examiner in
rejecting the appealed claims is:
Background section in the specification.
The rejections
Claims 5, and 7 through 9 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 112, second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to
particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter
which applicant regards as the invention
Claims 1 through 3, 5, and 7 through 9 stand rejected
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by the prior art
in the background of the specification.
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007