Appeal No. 96-1539
Application No. 08/128,456
which appellants rely for the distinction is specifically
identified. Accordingly, appellants’ commentary at these
pages of the principal brief is not persuasive of
patentability. For example, at page 9, appellants allege that
Blackard’s simulator must first “translate blocks...”
However, appellants point to nothing in the instant claims
which would preclude such a translation.
Finally, beginning at page 12 of the principal brief,
appellants begin to identify specific claim limitations which
allegedly distinguish over Blackard.
More specifically, appellants argue that whereas the
instant claimed invention provides for a mechanism on the
second system that appears to the programs and tasks of a
first system to be a mechanism of the first system, Blackard
provides a simulator, rather than an emulator, which merely
translates a first system application program, operating
system functions and address space into a replicated,
equivalent image of the first system application program,
operating system and address space residing in the second
system’s memory space and in terms of the second system’s
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007