Appeal No. 2000-1356
Application 07/979,772
51, 52, 53 and 55.
Regarding the dependent claim 54, this corresponds to
dependent claim 40 since an artisan would recognize that the
phrase “to control the execution sequence of ... instructions”
(claim 40) is equivalent to the phrase “controlling the
timing of execution of ... instructions” (claim 54).
Therefore, we sustain the obviousness of rejection of claim 54
for the same rational as for claim 48 and claim 40.
Claim 56
Contrary to Appellants’ arguments [brief, pages 20 and
reply brief 2 to 6], Lee shows first storage means as main
memory 14 and second storage means as cache 112 (fig. 3). In
other respects, the above discussion regarding claim 38
equally applies here. Consequently, we sustain the
obviousness rejection of claims 56 and 57 over Lee.
With respect to dependent claims 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, and
63, they respectively include limitations corresponding to
those in dependent claims 41, 42, 43, 44, 45 and 46.
Therefore, for the same rationale as claim 56 and the noted
-10-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007