Appeal No. 1995-3903 Page 18
Application No. 08/062,737
after the occurrence of said sector mark as a
function of said received initiation value.
In short, the claim recites plural initiating means. Each of
the initiating means is associated with one of the tasks and
each receives one of a plurality of the count values for
initiating a respective task.
The examiner erred in not addressing this limitation.
Comparison of Moon’s disclosure to the claim language does not
evidence that the reference would have suggested the claimed
initiating means. The reference’s counters operate together
to initiate the same task, viz., POS_ISR. Contrary to the
claims, each counter does not initiate a different task. For
the foregoing reasons, the examiner failed to show that Moon
would have suggested the plural initiating means of claim 38
and its dependent claims 39-42. Therefore, we find that the
examiner’s rejection does not amount to a prima facie case of
obviousness.
Regarding claim 45, the appellants argue, “Moon teaches
that of the three routines only the POS-ISR routine is to be
Page: Previous 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007