Appeal No. 1997-2382
Application 08/287,064
lar, Appellant argues that Gries does not disclose or suggest
the claimed language of directly encoding a literal source
code macroinstruction into a corresponding subroutine address
with- out performing an intermediate step of extracting an op
code of said macroinstruction as it is set forth in independ-
ent claims 1 and 11.
On page 4 of the answer, the Examiner states that
the basis for the rejection was set forth in paragraphs 4
through 12 of the office action mailed November 2, 1995 (Paper
No. 15). Turning to Paper No. 15, we note that the Examiner
argues that Gries teaches directly encoding the source code
into a subroutine address without extracting an op code. The
Examiner points to
Gries' page 245, first paragraph, and page 248, "Evaluating
Arithmetic Expressions" section. Turning to page 245 of
Gries, we fail to find that Gries teaches a means for directly
encoding said literal source code macroinstruction into a
corresponding subroutine address without performing an inter-
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007