Appeal No. 1998-1516
Application 08/420,540
The examiner’s position is that the load instruction in Schlansker is similar to the claimed
“predictor construct” because “Schlansker’s disclosed compiler inserts the preload instructions at
locations proximate to the load instructions in the instruction stream (see abstract)” [Answer-page 4].
For their part, appellants contend that Schlansker’s load instructions are not predictor constructs
because the load instructions do not predict down stream instructions and they do not predict an
address generation construct, making use, instead, of a previously generated address. It is appellants’
view that Schlansker’s load instructions “do not predict a down stream data load contruct, but are
themselves data load constructs. As such, a load instruction is not a predictor construct but is the data
load construct that is predicted by a predictor construct” [Brief-page 5, emphasis in the original].
Schlansker never explicitly mentions a “predictor construct.” Thus, we must determine if the
examiner is reasonable in the assertion that Schlansker’s load instruction is a “predictor construct,” as
claimed. To begin the analysis, we must first determine what is meant by a “predictor construct.”
Appellants provide us with the answer at page 5 of the instant specification:
Through inspection of the instruction stream, the compiler of the
present invention detects the existence of certain instruction stream
constructs that foretell the information that the processor will need
and when the processor will need the information (referred to hereafter
as predictor constructs). Typically, predictor constructs explicitly or
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007