Appeal No. 1999-0495
Application No. 08/752,729
Michael D. Smith et al. (Smith), Boosting Beyond Static Scheduling in a Superscalar
Processor, Computer Systems Laboratory, Stanford University, Stanford CA, pp. 344-
354 (copyright 1990 IEEE).1
Claim 18 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102 as being anticipated by
Popescu.
Claims 19 and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable
over Smith and Kodama.
Claims 1, 2, 4-11, and 13-17 have been allowed.
Claims 3 and 12 have been canceled.
We refer to the Final Rejection (mailed Nov. 13, 1997) and the Examiner's
Answer (mailed Sep. 15, 1998) for a statement of the examiner's position and to the
Brief (filed Jul. 16, 1998) for appellants' position with respect to the claims which stand
rejected.
OPINION
The examiner's findings underlying the rejection of claim 18 as being anticipated
by Popescu are set forth on page 3 of the Answer. Appellants advance several
arguments in opposition to the rejection. We are persuaded by appellants that
Popescu fails to disclose the step of "reordering the instructions independent of the
identification of the instructions," and thus cannot support a rejection for anticipation.
1 The paper was apparently published in a paginated IEEE journal, but the copy of record does
not tell in which journal it appeared.
-3-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007