Appeal No. 1997-0562
Application No. 08/255,130
whole must suggest the desirability, and thus the obviousness, of making the combination.
See In re Beattie, 974 F.2d 1309, 1312, 24 USPQ2d 1040, 1042 (Fed. Cir. 1992);
Lindemann Maschinenfabrik GMBH v. American Hoist and Derrick Co., 730 F.2d
1452, 1462, 221 USPQ 481, 488 (Fed. Cir. 1984). In determining
obviousness/nonobviousness, an invention must be considered "as a whole,"
35 U.S.C. § 103, and claims must be considered in their entirety. Medtronic, Inc. v.
Cardiac Pacemakers, Inc., 721 F.2d 1563, 1567, 220 USPQ 97, 101 (Fed. Cir. 1983).
Since the limitations that
maintaining an indication of completion of execution of each of said
dispatched scalar instructions in a separate completion buffer; and
controlling the transferring of results of execution of selected ones of said
dispatched scalar instructions from said intermediate storage buffers to
selected general purpose registers in an order consistent with said
application specified ordered sequence in response to said maintained
indication of completion of execution of said selected ones of said
dispatched scalar instructions within said separate completion buffer
are not clearly taught or fairly suggested by the combination of Torng and Guenthner, we
will not sustain the rejection of independent claims 1 and 6.
Appellants argue that Torng does not maintain an indication of completion of
execution of each of said dispatched scalar instructions as the examiner maintains on
page 3 of the answer. (See brief at page 6.) We agree with appellants. The examiner
responds by maintaining that Guenthner is relied upon to teach the separate completion
buffer without further response. (See answer at page 6.)
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007