Appeal No. 96-1539
Application No. 08/128,456
language which would invoke the sixth paragraph of 35 U.S.C. §
112. The examiner is at liberty to give the broadest
reasonable interpretation to the claims consistent with the
specification.
Also, we reject appellants’ arguments, as being
unpersuasive, regarding the details of the operation of
Albright, at pages 9-17 of the reply brief, because appellants
have not related such details to the instant claimed invention
and as to how such distinguishes thereover.
Nevertheless, we will not sustain the examiner’s
rejection because it is not clear to us how Albright
anticipates “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...”
The examiner’s statement of the rejection and reasons
therefor, at pages 5-6 of the principal answer, contains only
general statements about Albright and references to many
things being “inherent.” In a rejection based on anticipation
under 35 U.S.C. § 102, the examiner is expected to
particularly point out exactly where, in the reference, each
11
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007