Appeal No. 96-0908
Application 08/160,118
buses for comparison and sets the sign bit of the conditional
code ('S' indicated at the register 15 in FIG. 1) to 0. This
sign bit indicates that the result obtained by subtracting the
content of the second bus from the content of the first bus is
a positive value." (Col. 4, lines 52-57.)
(1) Claims 1-3, 13-15, and 25-39
Appellants argue that the rejection fails to comply with
the requirements of 37 CFR § 1.106(b) and fails to give
appellants fair notice of the portions of the references
relied on (Br4-5). The examiner's failure to comply with
Patent and Trademark Office rules is a petitionable matter.
The Board's jurisdiction is limited to those matters involving
the rejection of claims. See In re Hengehold, 440 F.2d 1395,
1404, 169 USPQ 473, 480 (CCPA 1971). The examiner's reasoning
in the Final Rejection could have been more detailed, but we
understand what was intended. The references are not lengthy
and the pertinence of each is apparent. The references as a
whole are relied on, not just the portions mentioned by the
examiner.
Diefendorff discloses (col. 11, lines 26-30):
"Alteratively [sic], a CONDITIONAL-STORE instruction executed
- 9 -
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007