Appeal No. 96-2040
Application No. 08/221,370
obvious. Thus, while the examiner has indicated a difference,
the examiner has failed to present any rationale as to why the
instant claimed subject matter, as a whole, containing this
difference, would have been obvious, within the meaning of 35
U.S.C. 103. Accordingly, no prima facie case of obviousness
has been presented.
The examiner also states [answer-page 4] that it “is not
clear that Applicant’s [sic, applicants’] claimed
‘predetermined’ workload must be some fixed number of
bytes...rather than the result of an operation which computes
a threshold prior to the workload shift.” We disagree. The
meaning of “predetermined” would appear to require at least
some determination at a previous time, i.e., previous to any
operation. Further, since the claims call for a
“predetermined value,” it is clear that what is intended is a
number which has been determined previous to any operation.
Accordingly, contrary to the examiner’s position, the claimed
“predetermined value” is not a threshold value which is
computed as a result of some operation but rather a fixed
number determined beforehand. In the preferred embodiment,
for example, that number is 5.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007