Appeal No. 97-1204
Application No. 08/453,948
We agree with appellants that the examiner’s reasoning is
faulty for various reasons. While Jardine is clearly relevant
to the claimed subject matter in permitting certain
instructions to be executed in parallel, as can be seen in
Jardine’s Figures 1 and 7, the fetch unit 10 causes
instructions to be stored in the instruction cache 12 and then
processing is performed which will result in generating
compounding information signifying parallel execution of at
least two instructions. In the instant claimed invention, the
generation of compounding information is done prior to storage
of instructions and compounding information in the cache. In
Jardine, any compounding information is generated downstream
from the cache storage.
Further, as argued by appellants, the instant claimed
subject matter requires that compounding tag information is
stored in the cache along with the instructions. While the
instant claims do not recite a "tag," explicitly, it is clear
that this is what is being referred to by the "compounding
information" [reference is made to the first paragraph of page
5 of the instant specification for a definition of
"compounding" which involves the tagging process] in the
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007