Appeal No. 95-1544
Application 08/003,602
the reply brief, there is a difference between the instant
claims, which require that the series of operations must be
completed without interruption, and the teaching of Yamaguchi
that a series of operations was completed without interruption.
The former requires operation completion without interruption by
the particular recited method of executing the special section of
code while the latter may complete a series of operations without
interruption but if an interruption occurs, Yamaguchi does not
undo, or erase, all previous operations before retrieving the
necessary unavailable memory reference.
Since we do not find, in Yamaguchi, all of the method
steps of the instant claims, the examiner's decision rejecting
claims 10 through 20 under 35 U.S.C. 102(e) as anticipated by
Yamaguchi is reversed.
REVERSED
ERROL A. KRASS )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
)
JERRY SMITH ) BOARD OF PATENT
Administrative Patent Judge ) APPEALS AND
-7-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007