Appeal No. 2005-1800
Application No. 09/204,479
implicitly identifying an additional register from an
explicit register specifier of an instruction, where
the instruction operates on both the implicitly and
explicitly identified registers.
We agree with appellants. We find nothing in Tanenbaum to
suggest two registers, one explicitly defined by an explicitly
defined register specifier and a second implicitly identified by
the explicitly-defined register specifier, wherein one
instruction operates upon both registers, as recited in claim 1.
In the portion relied upon by the examiner (Section 3.3.6 of
Tanenbaum) there is nothing to suggest that one instruction
operates on both the explicitly defined register and the auto-
indexed register. Thus, Tanenbaum fails to cure the deficiency
of Baxter. Accordingly, we cannot sustain the obviousness
rejection of claims 1 and 20, nor their dependents, claims 3
through 6, 8 through 17, 19, 21, 23, and 24. Further, since
Raghunathan does not remedy the shortcomings of the primary
combination, we cannot sustain the obviousness rejection of
claim 7.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007