Appeal No. 2001-0682
Application No. 09/003,572
With respect to independent claims 1, 19, 27, and 45, the Examiner attempts to read the
various limitations on the disclosure of Sites. In particular, the Examiner directs attention to the
illustration in Figure 8 of Sites along with the accompanying description at column 13, lines 3-67.
Appellant’s arguments in response assert a failure of Sites to disclose every limitation in
independent claims 1, 19, 27, and 45 as is required to support a rejection based on anticipation. At
pages 6 and 7 of the Brief, Appellant’s arguments focus on the contention that, contrary to the
Examiner’s interpretation of Sites, there is no disclosure of the speculative reordering of the
placement of at least one native code instruction as claimed. In Appellant’s view, Sites discloses
only the address conversion of CISC and RISC instructions and, specifically, merely the correlation
of the addresses of CISC instructions in an original program with the addresses of RISC instructions
in a translated program.
After reviewing the Sites reference in light of the arguments of record, we are in general
agreement with Appellant’s position as expressed in the Brief. We find no support for the
Examiner’s conclusion (Answer, page 12) that Sites’ re-addressing of original instructions related to
conditional branches such as “Jump,” or “Call,” which the Examiner has interpreted as being
“speculative” conditions, satisfies the speculative reordering feature of the independent claims 1, 19,
27, and 45. While the Examiner is correct that claims are to be given their broadest possible
interpretation, any such interpretation must be consistent with the specification.
In the present factual situation, we simply find no basis for the Examiner interpreting the
“speculative reordering” language of the appealed claims in the manner articulated in the Answer.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007