Appeal 2007-2467
Application 09/750,150
The Examiner finds that Wang discloses all elements of claim 13.
(Ans. 13). Appellants assert, on the other hand, that Wang fails to disclose a
hit in the second table. (App. Br. 9). As set forth above, we agree with the
Examiner that Wang discloses a “hit condition in said second table” as
recited in claim 13.
Appellants further argue that Wang fails to disclose a second table to
provide a prediction value. (Id.). Claim 13 recites a hit condition in the
second table that correlates to a predicted value of a prediction mode. As
aforementioned, Wang discloses a “hit” condition in which a match is
determined between a Value History Pattern in the VHT with a
corresponding value in the PHT. A corresponding counter value from the
PHT is used to provide a prediction value from the Data Values field of the
VHT. (Wang at 285, col. 2 and 288, col. 2). Contrary to Appellants’
assertion, claim 13 merely requires that the hit correlate to a predicted value.
Claim 13 fails to recite that the second table provides the prediction value.
We agree with the Examiner that Wang discloses that a hit condition occurs
in the PHT that “correlates to a predicted value.”
It follows that Appellants have failed to demonstrate that the
Examiner erred in rejecting claim 13 as being anticipated by Wang.
Therefore, we affirm the rejection of claim 13, and of claims 14-26, which
fall therewith.
IV. ADDITIONAL OBSERVATIONS
We note a possible issue with claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. 112, second
paragraph. Claim 1 recites “predicting the predicted value” which lacks
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013