Ex Parte BATTEN et al - Page 2



          Appeal No. 2003-0008                                                        
          Application No. 09/174,936                                                  

          decode stage of the pipelined processor and instructions with               
          false predicates are annulled before they are processed by                  
          subsequent stages.  According to Appellants (specification, pages           
          5 and 6), by eliminating unnecessary processing of false                    
          predicate instructions in the later pipeline stages, such as the            
          execute and write-back stages which typically consume the most              
          power, the power consumption of the processor can be reduced.               
               Claim 1 is illustrative of the invention and reads as                  
          follows:                                                                    
               1.  A method of processing instructions in a processing                
          system, the method comprising the steps of:                                 
               evaluating a predicate of a predicated instruction in a                
          decode stage of a pipelined processor of the system; and                    
               annulling the predicated instruction in the decode stage if            
          the predicate has a particular value.                                       
               The Examiner relies on the following prior art:                        
          Martell                       5,761,476           Jun. 02, 1998             
          Shiell et al. (Shiell)        5,799,180           Aug. 25, 1998             
               Claims 1-4, 6-13, and 15-20, all of the appealed claims,               
          stand finally rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being                    
          unpatentable over Martell in view of Shiell.                                
               Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellants and the              
          Examiner, reference is made to the Brief (Paper No. 14 and the              
          Answer (Paper No. 15) for the respective details.                           
                                          2                                           




Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007