Appeal No. 1999-0004
Application 08/593,309
considered [see 37 CFR
§ 1.192(a)].
We consider first the rejection of independent claims
1 and 12 based on Alpert and Johnson. The examiner indicates
how he interprets Alpert and Johnson so as to render these
claims obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103 [answer, pages 5-6].
With respect to claim 1, appellants argue that neither Alpert
nor Johnson discloses “a block alignment information input
mechanism that inputs block alignment information from a
source external to both said source code and said compiler” as
recited in claim 1 or “a block alignment processing mechanism
that processes said external block alignment information and
aligning certain of said plurality of basic blocks on a cache
line boundary” as also recited in claim 1. With respect to
claim 12, both the examiner and appellants rely on the same
positions considered with respect to claim 1. The examiner’s
response to appellants’ arguments is to essentially repeat the
statement of the rejection.
At the outset, we acknowledge our appreciation of the
examiner’s effort to specifically read the language of the
claims on the applied prior art. Such an effort makes it
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007