|
|
Court OpinionsState LawsUS CodeUS Constitution |
Ex parte ESSLINGER et al. - Page 6Legal Research Home > Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences > 1997 > Ex parte ESSLINGER et al. - Page 6
Appeal No. 95-5061
Application 07/825,979
software program that makes up the model. Appellants do not
argue that a model is defined differently by the inventors.
We note that the ordinary usage of the term "model" in the
software field is a "mathematical or graphical representation of
a real-world situation or object." We fail to find that the3
Examiner has established that Luke teaches executing a computer
process having parallel execution threads representing parallel
processes in a system or selects one of the execution threads for
animation of preselected events during the execution thread, the
execution thread being represented by a transaction and a model
of the system, the model including one or more hierarchical-
directed process execution graphs representing one or more sub-
models of the system as recited in Appellants' claim 1.
Appellants further argue that neither Luke nor Raeder
teaches animating and blocking of a specific transaction as
recited in method step (c) as recited in Appellants' claim 1.
The Examiner has pointed to Raeder, page 20, column 2, lines 18
for this teaching.
Upon a closer reading of the Raeder, we fail to find that
the prior art provides any evidence that suggests the limitation
of "animating the selected execution thread on a user's display
3Computer Dictionary, Microsoft press, second edition, 1994.
6
|