Appeal No. 95-3800
Application 08/046,109
which I/O code is executed in response to an external request
from the I/O device. An I/O instruction in the Konopik system
does not have to result in an I/O interrupt. Although an I/O
instruction in Konopik may lead to an I/O interrupt which
would execute I/O code in Konopik, such result is not
required. As appellants point out, such I/O instructions
would be ignored in Konopik if the I/O devices are not
connected. Thus, the operation of claim 13 is not inherent in
the operation of Konopik as argued by the examiner.
Since the recitations of claim 13 are not fully met by
the disclosure of Konopik, we do not sustain the rejection of
claims 13 and 14 as anticipated by the disclosure of Konopik.
We now consider the rejection of claims 15-22 under
35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over the teachings of Konopik
taken alone. Claims 15-21 depend from claim 13 while
independent claim 22 has recitations similar to independent
claim 13. Since we have determined that Konopik does not
disclose the operative means of claim 13, and since the
examiner has failed to address the obviousness of this
recitation, the examiner has failed to establish a prima facie
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007