Appeal No. 1995-3690 Page 4
Application No. 08/000,342
by the examiner and the appellant regarding the above-noted
rejections, we make reference to the examiner's answer (Paper
No. 16, mailed October 16, 1995) for the examiner's complete
reasoning in support of the rejections, and to the appellant's
brief (Paper No. 13, filed February 24, 1995).
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given
careful consideration to the appellant's specification and
claims, and to the respective positions articulated by the
appellant and the examiner. As a consequence of our review,
we make the determinations which follow.
We turn first to the examiner’s rejection under 35 U.S.C.
§ 112, second paragraph, of claims 5 and 7 through 9, as being
indefinite for failing to particularly point out and
distinctly claim the subject matter which applicant regards as
the invention. The examiner states:
It’s not clear how tags are used in
the trap processing to enable the
generation of a precise interrupt during
compilation and permit re-execution. The
link between the limitations in the
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007