Appeal No. 97-2466 Page 16
Application No. 08/461,943
improper and will be overturned. In re Rijckaert, 9 F.3d
1531, 1532, 28 USPQ2d 1955, 1956 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Regarding the obviousness of claim 2, the appellants
argue, “[n]either Pyster or [sic] Cordy disclose [sic] or
suggest [sic] any such steps for inserting a pseudo operation
....” (Appeal Br. at 16-17.) The argument also pertains to
the obviousness of claims 13 and 14. In response, the
examiner opines, “Cordy teaches a pseudo store instruction for
selected variables at a selected point (e.g [sic] the assert
(z = 1).” (Examiner’s Answer at 12.) He further opines,
“Cordy teaches defining a pseudo reference instruction for
selected variables (the variable v is a pseudo reference to
z). (Id.)
We cannot find that Pyster and Cordy teach or would have
suggested the last two steps of claim 2, the last step of
claim 13, or the last step of claim 14. Claim 2 recites in
pertinent part “generating a pseudo store instruction for
selected variables at said selected point in said first
Page: Previous 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007