Appeal No. 96-2446
Application 08/246,179
Woods and IBM. Moreover, the last sentence of paragraph one on page 8 of the answer
states "[t]he combination of these two references [Woods and IBM] would yield a system
that simultaneously stores a plurality of flag groups and then selects one of those flag
groups based upon a conditional branch instruction." The rejection is based upon a
combination of all three of the references and the Examiner has not provided the
motivation to combine all of the teachings. The Examiner also states at page 7, line 5 of
the answer that "[t]hese two references [Woods and IBM] together sufficiently teach the
Appellant[s'] invention." From a review of the record as a whole, it is unclear whether all
three of the references are being combined in the rejection and how the combination
meets all the limitations of the claimed invention.
Appellants argue that IBM does not supply the teachings which are lacking in
Woods. (See brief at page 9.) Appellants argue that the conditional branch instructions
of IBM are not used to specify data width and IBM does not suggest the use of conditional
branch instructions to specify data width. We agree. Appellants argue that
IBM does not "simultaneously save a plurality of flag groups." We agree, but find this
limitation only in claim 12. This limitation is not explicitly recited in claims 1 and 10, and
we will not read the limitation into these claims. It is axiomatic that, in proceedings before
the PTO, claims in an application are to be given their broadest reasonable interpretation
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007