Appeal No. 96-4033
Application No. 08/086,354
fall with independent claim 11. In re Nielson, 816 F.2d 1567, 2
USPQ2d 1525 (Fed. Cir. 1987).
After consideration of the positions and arguments
presented by both the examiner and the appellants, we have
concluded that the rejection of claims 11 and 13-20 should be
sustained but that the rejection of claim 21 should not be
sustained. With respect to claim 11, we agree in general with the
comments made by the examiner; we add the following discussion for
emphasis.
At pages 12 and 13 of their brief, appellants contend
that,
Appellants’ claim 11 is likewise patentably distinct
over Lee, which neither describes nor suggests “…means for
fetching a next instruction of said sequence…having an
address in sequence with said branch instruction if said
detected sign of said displacement is positive or…fetching a
branch target instruction…if said detected sign of said
displacement is negative…and means for testing a register
defined in said branch instruction to determine a condition
specified by said opcode…”
The examiner contends at page 3, item (11), of the
answer to the effect that the first element of claim 11 is met by
Lee’s disclosure at col. 2, lines 62-68, col. 3, lines 5-22 and
39-61, and col. 4, lines 26-41. The examiner further contends to
the effect that the second and third elements of claim 11 are
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007