Appeal No. 96-0905
Application No. 08/116,950
It is our view that if appellants’ claims, in some way,
required that all of the CPUs in the multiple CPU system were
subject to the claimed requirements regarding interruption
responsive to a preselected count, this would distinguish over
the applied references for the reasons set forth in the reply
brief. However, as presently claimed, we agree with the
examiner’s rejection of claims 1 through 8, 11 through 14 and 16
through 26 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
The examiner’s decision is affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in
connection with this appeal may be extended under
37 CFR § 1.136(a).
AFFIRMED
Errol A. Krass )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
)
Michael R. Fleming ) BOARD OF PATENT
Administrative Patent Judge ) APPEALS AND
) INTERFERENCES
)
)
James T. Carmichael )
Administrative Patent Judge )
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007