Appeal No. 96-1539
Application No. 08/128,456
and every claimed element and/or step and function is
disclosed, either explicitly or by inherency. The examiner
has not done so here and we are left to guess at just what, in
the reference, is being relied upon by the examiner. A
rejection under anticipation cannot be based on speculation.
While the examiner makes some reasonable points regarding
Albright’s emulation being transparent to both user-level
application programs and the operating system running on a
host so that one might consider this to be an “emulator level
interposed between the second system user level process and a
kernel level,” and regarding no claim limitation directed to
emulating “all” aspects of the first system on the second
system, the claims still require that the emulator level
includes a “plurality of pseudo device drivers.” These pseudo
device drivers are described in great detail at pages 24 et.
seq. of the instant specification and are an important part of
the instant claimed invention. Appellants have specifically
argued this limitation as not being disclosed by Albright and
the examiner has not responded to this argument. As we cannot
locate such a teaching of these pseudo device drivers anywhere
in Albright and the examiner either cannot or will not point
12
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007