Appeal No. 1999-0495
Application No. 08/752,729
identification is, manifestly, not the identification (i.e., boosting bit) disclosed by Smith.
It is thus unclear which reference is relied upon for particular requirements of claim 19.
Finally, the rejection appears to contemplate that Smith's setting of the "boosting
bit" is both "identifying each instruction" and a form of "grouping instructions into a
plurality of sets" -- boosted or not boosted. While the binary form of identification might
effectively group instructions into two sets, instant claim 19 requires separate steps of
"identifying" and "grouping," as set forth in the initial portion of the claim. The rejection
does not point out where any actual "grouping" of the boosted and non-boosted
instructions is disclosed by Smith. We do not find disclosure or suggestion of the
separate steps as claimed, even if setting of the boosting bits were to be considered
"independent of an execution order.”
For the foregoing reasons we cannot sustain the section 103 rejection of claims
19 and 20 as being unpatentable over Smith in view of Kodama. We thus do not
sustain the rejection of any of the claims on appeal.
CONCLUSION
The rejection of claims 18-20 is reversed.
-7-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007