Appeal No. 96-1539
Application No. 08/128,456
“plurality of pseudo device drivers” with each one
corresponding to a first system input/output device.
Since the examiner has not persuasively indicated where,
in Blackard, each and every claimed element and step,
including the claimed functions, is taught, we will not
sustain the rejection of claims 1 and 6 under 35 U.S.C. §
102(e) as being anticipated by Blackard.
Since Binkley is relied on, in the rejection of claims 2
through 5 and 7 through 9, merely for the teaching of an
input/output queue and Binkley does not provide for the
deficiencies noted supra with regard to Blackard, we also will
not sustain the rejection of the dependent claims under 35
U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Blackard in view of
Binkley.
We now turn to the rejection of claims 1 and 6 under 35
U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Albright.
Initially, we note that, for the same reasons mentioned
supra, with regard to appellants’ arguments relating to
Blackard, we reject appellants’ arguments regarding giving the
claim terms only the meaning ascribed to them in the
disclosure. The claims are not written in means plus function
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007