Appeal No. 1999-2252
Application 08/780,790
Domain Transfer Facility", 14th ACM Symposium on Operating
Systems Principles, pages 189-202 (December 1993), and the
Krieger et al. (Krieger) article titled "The Alloc Stream
Facility: A Redesign of Application-Level Stream I/O,"
Computer, Vol. 27, No. 3, pages 75-82 (March 1994).
Claims 1-2, 4-7, 9-11, 13, 14 and 16 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Appellants'
admitted prior art in view of Aichelmann.
Claims 17-20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over Appellants' admitted prior art in view
of Aichelmann and Dong.
Claims 21 and 22 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over Appellants' admitted prior.
Claims 3 and 8 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over Appellants' admitted prior art in view
of Aichelmann and Amini.
Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellants and the
Examiner, reference is made to the Brief and the Examiner's 1
Answer for the respective details thereof.2
1The Brief was received February 1, 1999, and a
Supplementary Appeal Brief was received August 13, 2001. The
Supplementary Appeal Brief will be referred to herein as the
"brief."
2The Examiner's Answer was mailed March 2, 1999.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007