Goodard v. Google, Inc.
Filing
158
<![CDATA[
Goodard v. Google, Inc.
Doc. 158 Att. 2
Dockets.Justia.com
Prosecution History Amendment and Response at 7, May 22, 1995 (Ex. H)
Distinguished Lee, Agnew
"Claim 1 clearly disallows a mere exlension of a single instruction set by stating: `said first encoding of instructions independent from second encoding of instructions'. Mere extensions of instruction sets must have dependent encodings since otherwise one opcode could be used for two instructions. . . . [Tlhese references show mere extensions to a single instruction set, such as for floating point instructions." [Although 386 and 486 processors were not cited by the examiner as prior art, the applicant uscd 486 as an example of an instruction set that was a "mere extension" of another instruction set:] "The 386 and 486 instruction sets do not meet claim limitations for separate instruction sets since the 486 set is a mere extensim of the 386 set, having most opcode in common."
Brief on Appeal at 4, Aug. 29, 1995 (Ex. I)
-
]]>
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?
© 2024 Justia
