Appeal No. 1997-3913
Application No. 07/860,386
to elements which are not recited in claim 1. For example,
appellants state that the claimed invention “provides for a
generalized interface which is generic to a group of
operations in at least one of a plurality of operating systems
and in which parameters of the generic interface are decoded
into particular ones of the group of operating system
operations and parameters included therein” [brief, page 10].
We do not find any language in claim 1 which recites a
plurality of operating systems. A group of data processing
operations as recited in the language of claim 1 is not the
same thing as a plurality of operating systems. Although the
disclosed invention is described as being used with a
plurality of operating systems, the claim recites an invention
for use with a group of data processing operations.
In our view, the examiner was correct to interpret the claim
as not requiring a plurality of different operating systems.
Appellants argue that claim 1 recites a single
interface whereas Burger discloses a plurality of generic APIs
[reply brief, page 6]. This argument is not persuasive
because a plurality of interfaces meets a single claimed
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007