Appeal No. 1997-0923
Application No. 08/400,414
it is possible to program instructions to be conditional or
unconditional. However, the examiner fails to specifically
point out how the particular above-referenced portions of
Conners are interrelated to meet the claimed limitations. The
examiner's position seems to be that since key words such as
"Boolean" and "condition" appear somewhere in Conners, the
claims are anticipated.
As pointed out by appellants (Brief, page 17), "Conners'
execution of Boolean operation instructions also lacks
conditionally writing as claimed." When Conners executes a
Boolean operation, the result value is held in a flip-flop 425
within the computers CPU (column 32, lines 15-19). Conners
does not conditionally write to a register depending on either
the condition value or the result value. Comments about
conditions in Conners refer to whether the execution of a
function is to be conditional or unconditional. Accordingly,
we find that Conners does not anticipate claim 21 or its
dependents, claims 22 through 25, 27 through 33, 35, and 36.
In addition, since claim 38 is substantially the same as claim
21 but in device format, claim 38 and its dependents, claims
41 through 44, 46 and 47 are not anticipated by Conners.
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007