Appeal No. 1997-4061
Application 08/469,498
reasonably expected to use the solution that is claimed by the
Appellants.
We agree with the Appellants that Fairchild does
teach the concept of pipeline processors. However, we also
find that Fairchild teaches another concept, --- the use of
IARs to store control data when an interrupt occurs so that
the processor may start exactly where it was before it was
interrupted. We find that this concept would have suggested
to those skilled in the art to use it as a solution in the
Clarke system so that the Clarke system will be able to return
to the patch program whenever an interrupt occurs. Therefore,
we find that Fairchild would have suggested the desirability
of modifying the Clarke system so that the Clarke system would
be able to process patch programs even when an interrupt
routine occurs. Therefore, we will sustain the Examiner's
rejection of claims 13 through 15 and 17 through 20 under 35
U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Clarke and Fairchild.
On pages 8 and 9 of the brief, Appellants argue that
neither Fairchild nor Clarke suggests comparing means that
compares addresses on the address bar, the first portion of
12
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007