Appeal No. 1997-1637
Application 08/432,270
processors because Cocke disclose that the computer controls the
processors [sic] operations by setting the reservation table (see
Figs. 11, 12), sending simulation instruction and data to the
processors, and the processors would simulate the instructions.
We will not sustain the rejection of claim 8.
It is considered that even though Cocke discloses that the
basic processors of its logic simulation device may operate in
combination with a host computer and a local computer
(collectively, the examiner’s central computer) which are used to
provide loading functions and to analyze the results of a
simulation, the examiner has not satisfied his burden of showing
how the computer operation referred to by him satisfies the
language of claim 8 requiring sentence calculating means “for
carrying out calculation on one of said sentences at a time only
when a change is indicated by one of said flags that corresponds
to said one of said sentences”. It is not apparent to us that the
prior art structure would perform the above function.
In the final rejection at page 3, the examiner acknowledged
that the flag settings of the claimed invention utilized to
control calculation on sentences are different from flag settings
of Cocke disclosed at column 8, lines 12-24. However, the
examiner indicated it would have been obvious to logic designers
to set up correct input values to logic functions in order to
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007