Appeal No. 1995-3903 Page 19
Application No. 08/062,737
initiated by an interrupt to the microprocessor.” (Appeal
Br. at 31.) The examiner neither responds to the argument nor
specifically addresses the claim in his rejection. Instead,
he alleges, “the scope of claims 43-47 is not distinguishable
form [sic] claims 37-42.” (Examiner’s Answer at 8.)
We cannot find that the reference teaches or would have
suggested the invention of claim 45. The claim specifies in
pertinent part “generating for each said task to be scheduled
during said present sector an interrupt signal from said
initiation value for each said task” and “sending said
interrupt signals to said microprocessor to initiate
processing of said tasks by said microprocessor.” In short,
the claim recites
generating an interrupt for each task.
The examiner erred in not addressing these limitations.
Comparison of Moon’s disclosure to the claim language does not
evidence that the reference would have suggested the claimed
generating an interrupt for each task. Although Moon
generates an interrupt to initiate POS_ISR, it does not
Page: Previous 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007