Appeal No. 95-3800
Application 08/046,109
case for the obviousness of claims 15-22. Therefore, we do
not sustain this rejection of claims 15-22.
We now consider the new rejection of claims 13-22
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by the disclosure of
Albright. The examiner indicates how he reads representative
claim 13 on the disclosure of Albright [answer, page 5].
Appellants argue that the operative means of claim 13 is not
fully met by the disclosure of Albright. Appellants note that
only “foreign” I/O requests generate an interrupt in Albright,
whereas, the claimed invention branches to special code each
time an I/O instruction is encountered [reply brief, pages 2-
4]. The examiner insists that the operative means of claim 13
reads on the first interrupt means of Albright’s claim 11
[supplemental answer, pages 2-3].
Although appellants are correct in their discussion of
the operation of Albright’s system, we find that claim 13
reads on the device disclosed by Albright. As appellants
point out, Albright executes special I/O code whenever a
“foreign” I/O request is received. These I/O requests are
described as occurring in programs (that is, part of an
instruction sequence) [column 2, line 68 to column 3, line 6].
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007