Appeal No. 96-0908
Application 08/160,118
Claims 1-43 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second
paragraph. The examiner states that in claims 1 and 13, with
respect to "'a register pair conditional store instruction',
it is not clear whether it refers to a special purpose
instruction or a conventional conditional instruction" (FR2).
Claims 1-43 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Auslander and Diefendorff.
Claims 1-43 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Kawata and Diefendorff.
OPINION
35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph
We agree with appellants that the term "register pair
conditional store instruction" is definite. Claims 1 and 13
describe the action performed "in response to" the instruction
and the "register pair conditional store instruction" is
descriptive of the action. It is not understood how the kind
of instruction has anything to do with definiteness. The
rejection of claims 1-43 under § 112, second paragraph, is
reversed.
35 U.S.C. § 103
Grouping of claims
- 4 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007