Appeal No. 2005-1800
Application No. 09/204,479
The examiner recognizes (Answer, page 3) that "Baxter does
not show how register specifier . . . is developed." The
examiner points to several sections of Tanenbaum to remedy this
deficiency. Specifically, the examiner asserts (Answer, page 4)
that Tanenbaum discloses auto-indexing "wherein a one or a
constant is automatically added to the previous address such that
consecutively stored operands can be retrieved and operated upon
by the op-code." The examiner continues, "If the operands of
Baxter are consecutively stored, it would have been obvious to a
person of ordinary skill in the art to use auto-indexing such
that consecutively stored operands can be retrieved and acted
upon by the op-codes." In the response to arguments section of
the Answer, the examiner contends that "Tanenbaum is about auto-
indexing of registers in register file which is exactly
Appellants' invention."
Appellants argue (Brief, pages 6 and 7) that auto-indexing
differs from the claimed implicit identification of a register.
Specifically, appellants explain
In auto-indexing, a register is incremented or
decremented, in preparation for use by a subsequent
instruction. Auto indexing is, therefore, inconsistent
with the applicant's claimed invention, which requires
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007