Appeal No. 97-0266
Application No. 08/176,370
Reply Brief (Paper No. 22, filed October 2, 1995) for the
appellants' arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
We have carefully considered the claims, the applied
prior art references, and the respective positions articulated
by the appellants and the examiner. As a consequence of our
review, we will reverse the obviousness rejection of claims 1,
3 through 17, 20 through 31, and 35 through 40.
Appellants make two arguments that are applicable to all
of the claims. First, appellants assert (Brief, page 7) that
Tran utilizes the term "dispatch" to connote an
instruction being released from a decoder (Tran also
describes this as being "issued," see column 5, line
29) and sent to a queuing device for later
execution. The present invention utilizes the term
"dispatch" to connote an instruction being released
from a queuing device for immediate execution.
In response, the examiner refers to column 1, lines 18-23, of
Tran, which states that the instruction is dispatched to the
reservation station, which "may check the results bus from the
functional units for data returning to the reorder buffer and
on detection of the appropriate tag, can directly receive the
result for immediate processing." The examiner concludes that
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007