Appeal No. 1998-1516
Application 08/420,540
processor and at which time the information is needed. Accordingly, we find ourselves in agreement
with the examiner that Schlansker’s load instruction is a “predictor construct,” as defined by appellants.
Appellants argue that the load instructions of Schlansker do not predict a down stream data
load construct, but are themselves data load constructs. It may be that Schlansker’s load instruction
does not predict a down stream data construct in the same manner as does appellants’ intended
“predictor construct” but, as broadly claimed and as broadly defined by appellants, a “predictor
construct” appears to be met by Schlansker’s load instruction and appellants have presented no
evidence to persuade us otherwise.
Accordingly, we will sustain the rejection of claims 1 through 5 and 11 through 15 under 35
U.S.C. 102(e).
With regard to the rejection of claims 6, 9, 10, 16, 19 and 20 under 35 U.S.C. 103,
appellants’ sole argument is, again, that Schlansker does not teach, disclose or suggest the claimed
“predictor construct.” Thus, for the reasons supra, we will also sustain the rejection of these claims
under 35 U.S.C. 103.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007