Appeal No. 1997-2161
Application 08/172,170
1326, 231 USPQ 136, 138 (Fed. Cir. 1986) and Lindemann
Maschinenfabrik GMBH v. American Hoist & Derrick Co., 730 F.2d
1452, 1458, 221 USPQ 481, 485 (Fed. Cir. 1984).
Upon our review of Sakuma, we fail to find that
Sakuma teaches Appellants' claimed physical register number
forming means. We note that Sakuma does disclose a bank of
registers 205. In column 8, lines 34-59, Sakuma discloses
that the group of register banks 205 contains registers
corresponding to tasks. Sakuma does not disclose converting a
logical register number designated in an instruction into a
physical register number which indicates a particular register
queue of a plurality of register queues. Therefore, we find
that Sakuma fails to teach every element as recited in
Appellants' claim 1.
Claims 10 and 11 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as being unpatentable over Sakuma in view of Hattori.
It is the burden of the Examiner to establish why
one having ordinary skill in the art would have been led to
the claimed invention by the express teachings or suggestions
found in the prior art, or by implications contained in such
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007