Appeal No. 96-2499
Application No. 08/204,521
We will reverse the examiner’s rejection of claims 1
through 3, 5 through 40 and 42 through 50 under 35 U.S.C. §
103.
Turning first to independent claim 16, which is
representative of claims 8, 9, 15, 22 and 40, the examiner
points to various portions of Cocke (pages 3-5 of the answer)
as corresponding to the instant claimed invention. At page 5
of the answer, the examiner admits that Cocke does not
explicitly teach the renaming of “flag registers,” as claimed.
However, the examiner concludes that it would have been
obvious to apply Cocke’s teachings to “flag registers” because
Cocke teaches (column 3, lines 61-63) that “register renaming
may be applied to any physical register set in the machine:
GPR’s, FPR’s, status/control registers, etc.” and that it “is
well known” that status/control registers “are flag registers
which contain a plurality of dynamically changeable flag bits
and mask bits.”
We agree that Cocke fails to teach the renaming of “flag
registers,” as claimed, but we disagree with the examiner that
it would have been obvious, within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. §
103, to apply the teachings of Cocke to flag registers.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007