Appeal No. 2000-1326 Page 4
Application No. 08/658,272
Rather than reiterate the positions of the examiner or
appellant in toto, we address the main point of contention
therebetween. The examiner makes the following assertions.
Furukawa teaches the use of a program interpreter
that interprets and executes the program code a line
at a time [e.g., col. 10, line 20, col. 14, lines
10, 36, 61, 62]. The program interpreter taught by
Furukawa clearly transforms one set of symbols
(e.g., the commands shown in fig. 2) into another
(e.g., machine code executable by a processor) by
following a set of syntactic and semantic rules, and
is therefore a type of compiler (i.e., an
interpreter). The Examiner has a duty and
responsibility to the public and to Applicant to
interpret the claims as broadly as reasonably
possible during prosecution. . . .
(Examiner's Answer at 5.) He adds, “[t]he Microsoft Computer
Dictionary (Third Edition) was consulted by the Examiner to
verify that the Examiner's interpretation of ‘compiler’ is
reasonable.” (Id. ) The appellant argues, "those of ordinary
skill art would recognize that a compiler and an interpreter
are different." (Reply Br. at 3.)
In deciding anticipation, “the first inquiry must be into
exactly what the claims define.” In re Wilder, 429 F2d 447,
450, 166 USPQ 545, 548 (CCPA 1970). “Although the PTO must
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007