Ex Parte Gary - Page 2




              Appeal No. 2006-0750                                                                                         
              Application No. 09/877,320                                                                                   

                                                    BACKGROUND                                                             
                     The invention relates to messages being passed between data processors by                             
              configuring a software interrupt on one of the processors.  Representative claim 1 is                        
              reproduced below.                                                                                            
                     1.     A method of communicating between data processors, comprising:                                 
                            on one of the data processors, configuring a software interrupt that is                        
                     configurable for triggering in response to either of first and second predetermined                   
                     conditions;                                                                                           
                            triggering the software interrupt in response to one of said predetermined                     
                     conditions; and                                                                                       
                            the software interrupt, when triggered, moving a message along a                               
                     message path that supports communication between the data processors.                                 
                     The examiner relies on the following reference:                                                       
              Song et al. (Song)                         5,996,058                    Nov. 30, 1999                        
                     Claims 1-37 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102 as being anticipated by Song.                        
                     We refer to the Final Rejection (mailed Jul. 21, 2004) and the Examiner’s Answer                      
              (mailed Jun. 23, 2005) for a statement of the examiner’s position and to the Brief (filed                    
              Apr. 26, 2005) and the Reply Brief (filed Aug. 23, 2005) for appellant’s  position with                      
              respect to the claims which stand rejected.                                                                  


                                                        OPINION                                                            
                     Based on appellant’s arguments in the Brief, we select claim 1 as representative                      
              of the claims on appeal.  See 37 CFR § 41.37(c)(1)(vii) (Sep. 13, 2004).                                     
                                                            -2-                                                            





Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007