Appeal No. 2005-1800
Application No. 09/204,479
32, filed January 20, 2004) and Reply Brief (Paper No. 34, filed
May 13, 2004) for appellants' arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
We have carefully considered the claims, the applied prior
art references, and the respective positions articulated by
appellants and the examiner. As a consequence of our review, we
will reverse the obviousness rejections of claims 1, 3 through
17, 19 through 21, 23, and 24.
Independent claim 1 recites, in pertinent part, "an
instruction that operates upon plural registers . . ., including
at least one register explicitly identified by an explicitly
defined register specifier and at least one other register
implicitly identified by the explicitly-defined register
specifier." Independent claim 20 recites method steps of
explicitly defining one register that is operated upon during
execution of an instruction and implicitly defining a second
register that is also operated upon during execution of the
instruction. Thus, one instruction operates upon at least two
registers, one of which is explicitly identified, and the other
of which is implicitly identified.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007