Ex Parte Dageville et al - Page 6

                Appeal 2007-1048                                                                               
                Application 09/969,334                                                                         
                using a second amount of memory.”  The language of claim 31 fails to                           
                distinguish over, for example, the computer that uses an operator (code 220;                   
                Trainin Fig. 2) to process an amount (less than the total amount) of data that                 
                resides in a first part of data memory 230, and then process additional data                   
                that resides in a second part of data memory 230.                                              
                      We are thus not persuaded that the Examiner’s finding of anticipation                    
                is in error with respect to claim 31.  We sustain the rejection of claim 31                    
                under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) over Trainin.                                                         

                                               CONCLUSION                                                      
                      The rejection of claims 23 and 31 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being                      
                anticipated by Trainin is: (1) reversed for claim 23; and (2) affirmed for                     
                claim 31.                                                                                      
                      No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with                       
                this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a).                                        
















                                                      6                                                        

Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  Next

Last modified: September 9, 2013