Appeal No. 95-3800
Application 08/046,109
388 (Fed. Cir.); cert. dismissed, 468 U.S. 1228 (1984); W.L.
Gore and Assocs., Inc. v. Garlock, Inc., 721 F.2d 1540, 1554,
220 USPQ 303, 313 (Fed. Cir. 1983), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 851
(1984).
The examiner indicates how he reads representative
claim 13 on the disclosure of Konopik [answer, page 3].
Although the examiner admits that Konopik only discusses the
handling of input/output requests which originate at the I/O
devices, the examiner asserts that interrupts which originate
at the processor, or software interrupts, are inherently
performed by the Konopik system [id., page 4].
Appellants argue that their invention has nothing to
do with interrupts which originate at the I/O devices.
Appellants argue that Konopik’s system does not execute
special I/O control code each time that an I/O instruction is
executed as recited in claim 13 [brief, pages 4-7]. We agree
with appellants.
Claim 13 recites that the special input/output control
code is executed whenever an instruction in the instruction
sequence is an input or an output instruction. As the
examiner admits, Konopik only describes an interrupt system in
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007