Appeal No. 1998-2661
Application 08/633,267
Rather than repeat the positions of the appellants and
the examiner, reference is made to the brief and reply brief
for appellants' positions, and to the first Office action,
Paper No. 3, mailed on March 19, 1997, for statements of the
rejections of the claims along with the examiner's responsive
arguments in the answer.
OPINION
Turning first to the rejection of claims 1, 2, 13 and 16
under 35 U.S.C. § 102 as being anticipated by Kau, we reverse
this rejection. The examiner's position is made clear in the
positions set forth at pages 4 and 5 of the answer. These
include the view that Kau's general purpose registers 62
correspond in an equivalent usage sense to the functioning of
the claimed physical rename registers and that Kau's
intermediate storage buffers 60 correspond to the claimed
virtual rename buffers.
We basically agree with the appellants' view expressed
primarily in the reply brief that the artisan would not have
realized such a correspondence as argued by the examiner. We
note also that claim 1 does not recite any virtual registers
at all, only independent claim 13. Both claims do, however,
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007