Ex parte SAYAH et al. - Page 8

          Appeal No. 96-0067                                                          
          Application 08/075,241                                                      

          examiner finds in Liang "an interface means for encapsulating,"             
          citing column 6, line 45, et. seq.  Lines 42 to 51 of column 6 of           
          Liang is reproduced below:                                                  
                    The system control processor 112 and the graphics                 
               control processor 114 communicate through interrupts                   
               and the communication areas described, above which are                 
               stored in the system memory 113.  The system control                   
               processor will first initialize graphics control                       
               processor 114 through general interface initialization.                
               This initialization includes establishment of all                      
               interface control blocks.  The SCP may next interrupt                  
               the graphic control processor to start traversal and                   
               may later stop traversal.                                              
          As the appellants correctly pointed out (Br. at 8), the cited               
          portions of Liang do not relate to data structure encapsulation.            
          If the examiner has interpreted data structure encapsulation to             
          mean something else, such other meaning has not been set forth or           
          explained.  On this record, the examiner has failed to                      
          demonstrate that Liang discloses the encapsulation feature of the           
          claimed invention.                                                          
               For all of the foregoing reasons, the rejection of claims 1-           
          5, 9 and 10 over Liang cannot be sustained.                                 
               Dependent claims 6-8 and 11-14 have been rejected over the             
          combination of Liang and Lazansky.  Lazansky has been relied on             
          by the examiner to meet the additional features recited in the              
          dependent claims (answer at 4).  It has not been applied in a               
          manner, as explained by the examiner, which would cure the                  


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

Last modified: November 3, 2007