Appeal No. 1998-2661
Application 08/633,267
claim 1 in that it recites that the assignment operation
occurs "whether or not" the physical rename registers are
available. This alternative construction not only reads upon
the unavailability features as already indicated to be known
in the art, but also when the registers are available.
Obviously, within 35 U.S.C. § 103 in the context of claims 1
and 13, an instruction that has not yet been executed does not
have any result that can be availably placed in any result
register.
The subject matter of dependent claim 14 is a slightly
more specific functional sequence than claim 13 implies and is
considered inherent in the operation of the circuits of the
admitted prior art and Kau. Appellants' admitted prior art
clearly teaches the feature of dependent claim 15. As to
dependent claim 16, because both Kau and appellants' admitted
prior art relate to superscaler computer systems, a second or
sequential instruction is specifically known to exist in these
systems. In effect, the subject matter of claim 16 mimics the
subject matter of independent claim 13 for a second labelled
instruction.
As to claim 18, the rejection of this claim is consistent
10
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007