Appeal No. 96-4033
Application No. 08/086,354
In their reply brief, appellants argue that at col. 1,
lines 46-55, Lee neither describes nor suggests “means for testing
a register defined in said branch instruction to determine a
condition specified in said opcode, after said means for fetching
has started fetching said next instruction…” as recited in claim
11.
Appellants do not contend that Lee does not teach the
first and second elements of claim 11, and we are convinced that
these elements are in fact disclosed by the reference.
With respect to the third element of claim 11 defining
means for fetching a next instruction or, in the alternative, a
branch target instruction, this subject matter is taught by Lee at
column 1, lines 6-15, wherein it is disclosed that the decision to
branch or not to branch may be based on one or more events which
include positive and negative numbers. In their reply brief,
appellants have not challenged the examiner’s position at page 3
of the answer to the effect that this disclosure satisfies the
third element of the claim.
Regarding the fourth element of claim 11, at page 4,
lines 11-21, appellants do not contend that Lee does not teach
means for testing a register identified in a branch instruction to
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007