Appeal No. 2006-3352
Application No. 09/682,520
Appellant argues that not all the elements of the claim are taught by the
reference, either expressly or inherently. One missing element is argued to be:
“ …pushing a unique identifier into a predefined area of storage, wherein said
unique identifier is associated with the instructions executed as a result of said
evaluation of true” [Brief, page 5].
Similar omissions are indicated with respect to claims 13 and 14. Appellant
argues that individual bits taught in Wisor are not unique identifiers as claimed “since
they merely represent whether a branch is taken or not taken” [Brief, page 6].
We consider the “1” bits in Wisor that indicate a branch was taken as unique, as
those bits are different from and distinguished from the “0” bits that are indicated when
the branch is not taken. Though a disclosure in the specification, and the arguments in
appellant’s brief, may wish to indicate that the uniqueness of the identifier is a one-to-
one correspondence of the identifier to a particular conditional branch, such an identity
is not required by or specified in the claim language.
Claim 1 requires only that a “unique identifier is associated with the instructions
executed as a result of said evaluation of true.” An “association” is not a tight linkage.
The unique identifier, “1,” in Wisor, only appears when the branch is evaluated as “true,”
which is a minimal, but sufficient association for the claim language “wherein said
unique identifier is associated with the instructions executed as a result of said
evaluation of true.” But Wisor does go further and places the “1” bit in a predefined area
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007