Appeal No. 97-1303
Application 08/160,300
Essentially, we agree with the positions advocated by
appellant in the brief beginning at page 17. Murakami appears
to us as well not to make any mention of write priorities in
storing the results of arithmetic operations nor of any write
priorities associated with storing any data move or data
transfer operations therewith. The final rejection as well as
the answer do not mention write priority as recited in each
claim on appeal, and we observe as did the appellant at page
17 of the brief that the final rejection admits that Murakami
does not disclose this subject matter.
Appellant quotes column 23, lines 35-48 of Murakami,
which appears to be the major or only basis the examiner
relies upon to urge the analogousness of additional branch
decision unit operations to conditional storage operations.
The examiner admits at page 6 of the answer that Murakami does
not explicitly
teach executing a conditional store operation for selectively
storing either the result of an operation or a value of a
predetermined memory into a designated memory location
depending upon the condition value.
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007