Appeal No. 96-1539
Application No. 08/128,456
preclusions in the instant claims. Accordingly, we are not
persuaded by this argument.
We are persuaded, however, by appellants’ argument that
the instant claims require “an emulator level interposed
between the second system user level process and a kernel
level,” wherein the emulator level includes a “plurality of
pseudo device drivers” and wherein the kernel level includes
“a plurality of kernel processes, each kernel process
corresponding to a pseudo device driver.” We find no evidence
in Blackard, nor has the examiner convincingly pointed to
anything therein, that the simulator of Blackard operates as a
functional level “interposed between the second system user
level process and a kernel level.” Further, as pointed out
supra, we are unconvinced of any “plurality of pseudo device
drivers” in Blackard. Certainly, the ROM, RAM and BIOS
identified in Blackard by the examiner as constituting such
pseudo device drivers do not correspond to a first system
input/output device, as required by the instant claims. And
even if the VIDEO may be considered an input/output device, as
apparently admitted by appellants at page 15 of the principal
brief, it is unclear what the examiner intends to be the
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007