Appeal No. 1999-0495
Application No. 08/752,729
accompanying drawings. If we understand the examiner's position to be that Popescu's
instruction ID is not the only factor, or even a factor of primary importance, in the
"reordering," then we may agree with the finding, but do not consider such to meet the
terms of claim 18. In particular, while we agree that the instruction ID does not
"determine" an execution scheduling order for the instructions (Answer at 6), the
examiner's observation might indicate an erroneous claim interpretation.
The instant specification (page 23) describes the compiler assigning an
identification field 105 "independent of an execution order." The specification further
describes (pages 13-14) the compiler reordering the instructions "in order to increase
total system throughput," with no disclosure of the identification field 105 being
considered in the reordering. Or, in the terms of claim 18, the reordering is
"independent of the identification of the instructions."
“Anticipation is established only when a single prior art reference discloses,
expressly or under principles of inherency, each and every element of a claimed
invention.” RCA Corp. v. Applied Digital Data Sys., Inc., 730 F.2d 1440, 1444, 221
USPQ 385, 388 (Fed. Cir. 1984). In our opinion the reordering of the instructions, as
disclosed by Popescu," is not "independent of the identification of the instructions." We
therefore cannot sustain the section 102 rejection of claim 18.
We next consider the rejection of claims 19-20 under section 103 as being
unpatentable over Smith in view of Kodama, set forth on pages 3 through 4 of the
Answer. Appellants argue (Brief at 16-17) that, contrary to the statement of the
-5-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007