Appeal No. 1999-1888
Application No. 08/473,504
201, but not a data buffer. The examiner, rather than responding
to appellant's argument, merely repeats the rejection verbatim.
We fail to see where Eickemeyer II shows the load data being
available in the decode stage. Instead, Figure 2 clearly
indicates that the accessing of load data occurs after the decode
stage. Accordingly, we cannot sustain the rejection of claims 1
through 3.
As to claims 5 through 14 and 16, the examiner adds
Eickemeyer I, which also shows (in Figure 2) accessing of load
data occurring after the decode stage. Consequently, as
Eickemeyer I fails to cure the deficiency of Eickemeyer II, we
will not sustain the rejection of claims 5 through 14 and 16.
Independent claim 17 recites that the decode stage is
"configured to access said data buffer." The examiner relies on
Eickemeyer I and II. Appellant argues (Brief, page 10), and as
stated above, the two references show accessing of the load data
occurring after the decode stage, not during the decode stage.
Again the examiner responds to appellant's argument by repeating
the rejection verbatim. Therefore, we cannot sustain the
rejection of claims 17 through 25.
Lastly, regarding claim 26, the examiner admits (Answer,
page 16) that Eickemeyer I "does not explicitly show the claimed
limitation of fetching data associated with said plurality of
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007