Appeal No. 97-1656 Page 16
Application No. 08/314,26
conflict. Comparison of the claim language to the reference’s
teaching, furthermore, evidences that Takahashi’s priority
control circuit anticipates the claimed third controlling
means. The claimed “controlling the existence of a mask in
display in accordance with the priorities of said display
tasks” reads on Takahashi’s controlling the existence of a
mask based on priorities of display patterns.
Further regarding claims 3 through 6 the appellant
argues, “Takahashi has nothing which controls the occurrence
of ‘interrupts’ (plural) in accordance with priorities of the
display tasks.” (Appeal Br. at 13.) In response the examiner
speculates it “would be necessary to have an interrupt
controller to control the interruptions of the display tasks.”
(Examiner’s Answer at 10.)
The examiner does not address the claim limitation that
requires controlling in accordance with the priorities of the
display tasks. We find that Takahashi fails to teach this
Page: Previous 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007