Appeal No. 96-3200 Page 5
Application No. 08/337,196
Watson specifies a plurality of virtual processors in sequence
of use. However, as argued by appellants [brief-page 6], in
Watson, “not a plurality of sequences, as in the case of the
present invention, but only one sequence is stored...”
Now, it may be, as apparently contended by the examiner,
that the peripheral processor 11 of Watson may be considered to
be the single microprocessor, as claimed, and the plurality of
virtual processors, which form a part of the peripheral
processor, may be considered to be the claimed “program
counters,” since Watson explains, at column 18, lines 25-27,
that the virtual processors comprise program counters. One
might even make the argument that these program counters are
“selected,” as claimed, because, at column 19, lines 34-37,
Watson explains that the time available to one or more of the
virtual processors may be allocated.
But, even assuming all this to be true and applicable to
the instant claims, claims 12 and 22 each require, inter alia,
in one form or another, that one may designate the order in
which each of the program counters is to be selected by the
selecting means. Claim 12 specifically recites “wherein a user
can designate said order...” [emphasis ours]. Clearly, there
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007