Appeal No. 1998-2661
Application 08/633,267
weighed within 35 U.S.C. § 103, the artisan would not have
considered this reference to teach away from the claimed
invention to the extent we relied upon it.
Finally, we turn to the examiner's last stated rejection
of all claims on appeal, claims 1 through 16, 18 and 19 as
being obvious over the collective teachings and showings of
Sato and Deosaran. We sustain this rejection only as to claim
1.
It appears that the examiner relies upon Sato only for
those claims that specifically recite virtual rename buffers,
and these include all claims on appeal except for claim 1.
The examiner apparently sees some correspondence between the
virtual registers associated with the pseudo-codes associated
with source program instructions during a compiling operation
and their relationship to corresponding real registers
associated with finally converted machine codes. However, we
are in agreement with appellants' views expressed at page 15
of the principal brief on appeal:
Sato is not relevant prior art to the
present invention, since Sato teaches a process
implemented within a compiler, and does not
address the actual execution of instructions in
parallel pipelines. As can be seen by noting
Figure 3, step S10 converts the pseudo-code into
14
Page: Previous 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007