Appeal No. 2003-1110
Application No. 09/295,439
does not point out where these claim requirements are disclosed,
either expressly or inherently, in Nguyen.
In the response to the appellants’ arguments, the examiner
argues (answer, pages 11-12):
It should be noted that the [Nguyen] instruction[s]
that have a register dependency are logically removed.
One of ordinary skill in the art would be aware that
this would require a signal or indicator to inform the
system that a dependency exist[s], further one of
ordinary skill in the art would be aware that, the
clearing an indicator would be to indicate to the
system that the dependency no longer exist[s] and that
such information would be sent to the instruction
issuer, this is clearly taught in the cited passages.
This argument is not persuasive even if it is correct. The
reason is that what the appellants’ claims require is not an
indication that a dependency no longer exists. Claim 27 requires
issuing a first instruction to one of two execution units in
response to an indication that a dependency is being (not has
been) cleared. Claim 38 requires issuing a first instruction to
one of two execution units in response to a detected dependency
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007