Appeal No. 2001-2610
Application No. 09/052,247
instructions in a current cache line are not path-changing
instructions,” to be a little confusing. Apparently, however,
appellants and the examiner have no trouble with this language.
The main language in issue with regard to claim 1 is
“wherein an instruction-path-changing instruction branches beyond
said next sequential preselected instruction set.” We agree with
appellants that Mahalingaiah does not appear to teach the
determination if a fetched instruction is an instruction-path-
changing instruction in which the instruction-path-changing
instruction branches beyond the next sequential address. The
examiner relies on column 8, lines 65-67, of Mahalingaiah,
wherein the reference recites that the branch direction may “not
be taken”, in which subsequent instructions are fetched from
memory locations consecutive to the branch instruction. We fail
to see how this is a teaching of “wherein an instruction-path-
changing instruction branches beyond said next sequential
preselected instruction set.” As explained by appellants, at
pages 3-4 of the reply brief, “a teaching directed to the branch
being taken, if the branch target is beyond the next sequential
instruction, is an instruction-path changing instruction.
Therefore, teaching in Mahalingaiah directed to the branch being
taken, is inapplicable to a limitation directed to the step of
-6–
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007