Appeal No. 2003-1110
Application No. 09/295,439
3. Nguyen et al. taught the invention (claims 27-28)
including a data processing system comprising a first
execution unit and a second execution (4780 - 478n);
detection means (494, col. 48, lines 34-60); issue
means and clearing means (col. 33, lines 28-65;
col. 51, lines 1-20; fig. 14).
* * *
8. Claims 38-48 fail to teach or define above or
beyond claims 27-37 and are rejected for the reasons
set forth, supra.
“Anticipation requires that every limitation of the claim in
issue be disclosed, either expressly or under principles of
inherency, in a single prior art reference.” Corning Glass Works
v. Sumitomo Electric, 868 F.2d 1251, 1255-56, 9 USPQ2d 1962, 1965
(Fed. Cir. 1989). The appellants’ claim 27 requires an issue
means for selectively issuing a first one of a first plurality of
instructions to one of two execution units in response to an
indication by a first dependency indicator indicating that a
dependency between that instruction and a second instruction is
being cleared. Claim 38 requires selectively issuing a first one
of a first plurality of instructions to one of two execution
units in response to a detected dependency between that
instruction and a second instruction being cleared prior to an
availability of a result from the second instruction. The
examiner, in the explanation of the rejection of claims 27 and 38
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007