Appeal No. 1997-1637
Application 08/432,270
The respective positions of the examiner and the appellant
with regard to the propriety of the rejections is set forth in the
final rejection (Paper No. 6) and the examiner’s answer (Paper No.
13) and the appellant’s brief (Paper No. 12) and reply brief
(Paper No. 14).
Appellant’s Invention
We agree with the examiner that the summary of the invention
contained in pages 2-5 of the brief is correct and we adopt it as
our own.
The Rejection under 35 U.S.C. §103
Appellant observes that claim 8 requires a sentence
calculating means for carrying out calculation on one of a
plurality of sentences at a time only when a change is indicated
by one of the flags stored in memory. The contention is made that
the examiner concedes that this feature is not taught by Cocke.
With respect to the above, the examiner takes the position at
pages 3 and 4 of his answer that,
Even [though] Cocke do not explicitly disclose sentence
calculating means for carrying out calculation on one of the
sentences as claimed, [a] practitioner in the art at the time the
invention was made would have found it obvious the computer would
distribute data and instructions to the simulator to perform the
simulation, and centrally control the computation of the
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007