Appeal No. 2003-0902
Application No. 09/332,413
page 6, lines 11-12). However, Peleg clearly discloses this
feature (answer, page 6, lines 12-24). The Examiner then
indicates that one of ordinary skill in the art would have
recognized the advantages of incorporating the grouping of
instructions into groups that contain only one interruptible
instruction (answer, page 6, line 26, through page 7, line 10).
We have reviewed the record before us and we agree with the
Appellants. Peleg teaches the features noted above. However, so
does Shen. Shen teaches at column 15, lines 39-43, that
instructions are fetched in blocks for each cycle, at column 8,
lines 24-36, that all interruptible instructions are
checkpointed, and at column 50, lines 15-16, that instruction
issue rules are used to limit the checkpointing to one
instruction per cycle. Since Shen already implements "an
instruction group containing only one interruptible instruction,"
the Examiner's stated motivation to combine the references is
unpersuasive. Additionally, claim 5 requires that the
interruptible instructions be at the end of the instruction block
(claim 5, line 6, "up to and including"). The Examiner has
provided no motivation in the rejection as to why one skilled in
the art would be motivated to incorporate this feature found in
Peleg into the system of Shen. Therefore, Appellants' arguments
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007