Appeal No. 95-4736
Application 08/084,801
to be replaced. With respect to independent claims 14 and 28, appellants contend that neither
reference involves replacing, during system run time, stored instructions with new instructions in
the particular group of addresses the stored instructions are located in.
After consideration of the positions and arguments presented by both the examiner and the
appellants, we have concluded that the rejection of claims 1-39 should not be sustained.
With respect to claim 1, both the examiner and appellants agree that neither reference
teaches a controller which performs the disabling function of the claim, and we are of the opinion
that it has not been established that this prior art taken as a whole would have suggested to one of
ordinary skill in the art to modify the teachings of the art to include the disabling function. In re
Fritch, 972 F.2d 1260, 1266, 23 USPQ2d 1780, 1783-1784 (Fed. Cir. 1992). The examiner’s
position that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to recognize that
control means must disable read/write results of execution during the process of interruption is
not persuasive. The examiner seems to be saying that it would have been obvious to disable
Littleton’s system during data substitution. Even assuming that this is true, this is not what
appellants are doing. The disablement disclosed and claimed by appellants is not a general
disablement of the entire system; rather, it is a specific type of disablement. At page 9 of
appellants’ specification, it is disclosed that the NOP controller causes instructions stored in the
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007