Appeal No. 1997-0562
Application No. 08/255,130
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” after nonsequential execution of
instructions.
Appellants argue that the combination of Torng and Guenthner would not teach or
fairly suggest the claimed completion buffer and transfer of results as recited in claims 1
and 6. (See brief at page 9.) We agree with appellants. Therefore, we will not sustain the
rejection of independent claims 1 and 6.
With respect to the rejection of dependent claims 3-5 and 8-10, the examiner relies
upon the teaching of Kinney and Hobbs to teach the additional limitations, but the examiner
does not rely upon the teachings of Kinney and Hobbs to teach or suggest those limitations
that are lacking in the combination of Torng and Guenthner. From our review of Kinney
and Hobbs, we find that they do not remedy the deficiencies in the base combination of
teachings. Therefore, we will not sustain the rejection of claims 3-5 and 8-10.
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007