Appeal No. 97-0266
Application No. 08/176,370
dependent instructions are dependent instructions satisfying
the first condition.
The prior art references of record relied upon by the
examiner in rejecting the appealed claims are:
Murray et al. (Murray) 5,142,633 Aug. 25, 1992
Tran 5,345,569 Sep. 06,
1994
(filed Sep. 20, 1991)
Val Popescu, et al., "The Metaflow Architecture," IEEE Micro
(June 1991), pp. 10-13 and 63-73. (Popescu)
Claims 1, 3 through 17, 20 through 31, and 35 through 40
stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable
over Tran in view of Murray and Popescu.2
Reference is made to the Examiner's Answer (Paper No. 17,
mailed July 25, 1995) and the Supplemental Examiner's Answer
(Paper No. 19, mailed October 13, 1995) for the examiner's
complete reasoning in support of the rejections, and to the
appellants' Brief (Paper No. 21, filed October 2, 1995) and
2Although the Examiner's Answer includes the statement of the
rejection, the statement is not followed by an explanation nor a reference to
a prior paper which includes a complete statement and explanation of the
rejection. However, we believe we understand the examiner's position.
Further, as appellants have discussed all claimed limitations at length with
respect to the three applied references, appellants clearly have had an
opportunity to respond to the rejection, such that there has been no lack of
due process.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007