Ex Parte MUNROE et al - Page 9




                    Appeal No. 2001-1578                                                                                                                                  
                    Application No. 08/771,550                                                                                                                            


                    conventional multiple virtual address operating system.  In                                                                                           
                    particular, on page 277, Chase states that the familiar model of                                                                                      
                    programs as independent short-lived processes that transform a                                                                                        
                    stream of input to a stream of output is needlessly restrictive                                                                                       
                    and forces poor structuring and performance tradeoffs for a broad                                                                                     
                    and increasingly important class of applications.  Chase further                                                                                      
                    goes on to say that these applications are better served by the                                                                                       
                    single-address-space structure.  We find no suggestion or                                                                                             
                    teaching in Chase to support the Examiner's proposed combination.                                                                                     
                    Therefore, we will not sustain the Examiner's rejection of claims                                                                                     
                    1-4, 9-13, 16-18, 23, 24, 27 and 28 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as                                                                                          
                    being unpatentable over Magee '383 and Magee '710 in view of                                                                                          
                    Chase.  Furthermore for the rejection of claims 5-8, 14, 15, 19-                                                                                      
                    22, 25, 26, and 29-31 we note that the Examiner relies on the                                                                                         
                    above rationale for this combination as well.  Therefore, we will                                                                                     
                    not sustain this rejection either.                                                                                                                    











                                                                                    99                                                                                    





Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007