Appeal No. 2003-0008
Application No. 09/174,936
claims. As discussed supra, each of the appealed independent
claims requires, in the decode stage of a processor, the
evaluation of a predicate of a predicated instruction and the
annulling of such instruction dependent on the particular value
of the predicate, a feature which, in our view, is not taught or
suggested by the applied Martell and Shiell references.
In summary, since we are of the opinion that the prior art
applied by the Examiner does not support the obviousness
rejection, we do not sustain the rejection of independent claims
1, 10, and 19, nor of claims 2-4, 6-9, 11-13, 15-18, and 20
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007