Appeal No. 1995-3903 Page 17
Application No. 08/062,737
Time when POS_ISR completes, would have suggested the claimed
generating a signal to start tasks in response to the value.
Therefore, we find that the reference would have suggested the
language of claim 44. Next, we consider the obviousness of
claims 38-42 and 45-47.
Claims 38-42 and 45-47
Regarding claim 38, the appellants argue, “Moon does not
have an initiating means for each event that receives a count
from the microprocessor which determines when that event
occurs.” (Appeal Br. at 29.) The examiner neither responds
to the argument nor specifically addresses the argued
limitations in his rejection.
We cannot find that Moon teaches or would have suggested
the invention of claim 38. The claim specifies in pertinent
part the following limitations:
a plurality of initiation means, each said
initiation means associated with one of said
processes for receiving said initiation value for
said process from said microprocessor and for
generating an initiation signal for said process
Page: Previous 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007