Appeal No. 1998-2661
Application 08/633,267
the examiner. In fact, the general purpose registers 62 of
Kau perform a comparable function to the admitted prior art
architected registers for final storage of the results of
instruction execution as indicated in the background portion
of appellants' specification. Therefore, the artisan would
not have considered the examiner's views as indicating an
anticipation of the noted claims within 35 U.S.C. § 102. In
other words, according to the examiner's reasoning, the
artisan would not have been placed into the possession of the
claimed invention based upon the examiner's views as to Kau.
In light these findings, we cannot sustain the examiner's
basis of the rejection of independent claims 1 and 13 and
their respective dependent claims rejected, claims 2 and 16
under
35 U.S.C. § 102. For similar reasons, we must also reverse
the rejection of dependent claims 3 through 7 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 over Kau alone.
On the other hand, we institute a new rejection of claims
1 through 3, 8, 12 through 16, 18 and 19 under 35 U.S.C. § 103
in light of the admitted prior art teachings of appellants at
pages 2 and 3 of the specification as filed, further in view
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007