Appeal No. 96-2587
Application No. 08/035,750
does not specify what updating is to be performed on any
address fields in the file, as claimed.
Further, we agree with appellants, at page 16 of the
principal brief, that if the examiner is reading “n,” as
claimed, as “6” in Hastings, the examiner is in error because
the “6” specified in Hastings’ BEQ 6 instruction does not
relate to updating first address fields of 6 consecutive
information items as would be required by the claims. As
pointed out by appellants, at page 16 of the principal brief,
the “only address field which Hastings updates is the two-byte
offset field in the BEQ instruction, which contains ‘6’ before
expansion and will contain ‘16’ after expansion. Such two-
byte offset field is the address field of only one information
item...”
Accordingly, for at least these reasons, we will not
sustain the rejection of independent claims 1 and 36 (or their
dependent claims 10-15 and 41-45) under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a) as
anticipated by Hastings.
We now turn to independent claims 16 and 46, which were
rejected, along with various dependent claims, under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as unpatentable over Hastings in view of Van Dyke.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007