Appeal No. 1995-3690 Page 9
Application No. 08/000,342
instructions are not executed until the program reaches their
origin point in the program and before the instructions which
are after the origin point are executed. In any case, as the
claims do not recite that tags are utilized to generate a
precise interrupt, appellant is not required to make this
“clear” in the claims.
In regard to the examiner’s contention that each of the
limitations in the dependent claims should be linked to other
limitations in the base claim and that reciting a limitation
with no linking element or operation leaves the claims
indefinite, we simply do not agree with the examiner. The
claims are set out as a method of performing steps in which
one step follows another. The dependent claims merely state
further steps to be taken. In our view, the claims are clear
when read in light of the specification.
In view of the foregoing, we will not sustain the
rejection of claims 5 and 7 through 9 under 35 U.S.C. § 112,
second paragraph.
We turn next to the examiner’s rejection of claims 1
through 3, 5, and 7 through 9 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007